>if you can't understand that intelligence boils down

it boils down to more than just that

but it does boil down

>>8615741

it does boil.

all the way down

>>8615741
can't figure out what's after that

what's next?

File: 1475280930669.jpg (2MB, 1890x3000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1890x3000px

>>8615728
Ah, yes, the brainlet who thinks only in terms of IQ tests.

>>8615763
?

Not thinking about IQ tests, I'm thinking about everyday intelligence of all sorts. Show me some form of intelligence that does not depend on memory and pattern recognition.

>>8615728
I bet you think the people on this show were actually "smart".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brain_(game_show)
If they're so "smart", where is their groundbreaking research? If they're so good at pattern recognition and memory, why aren't they solving exactly how the brain works, or helping us skip years ahead of Moore's Law?

>>8616055
Knowing what kind of clothes to wear in a brand new social situation, which you have never been to and there are no pictures or guides of any kind for you to form a heuristic about what to wear.

>>8615728

I think that is quite a bit of reductionism.

You might as well go all in and say that intelligence is a state machine.

>>8616068
>Knowing what kind of clothes to wear in a brand new social situation, which you have never been to and there are no pictures or guides of any kind for you to form a heuristic about what to wear
Information stored in memory and manipulated in order to get to the best conclusion (i.e. logic).

>>8615728
Replace memory with creativity. You can actually be a smart person with an average or even subpar memory (I mean long term memory), it's just not very common.

>>8616084
>Information stored in memory and manipulated in order to get to the best conclusion (i.e. logic).

The reason the previous anon gave that example is because most ML algorithms depend on training data.

If the ML program encounters a novel piece of data or new situation, the program usually breaks and fails miserably.

You are assuming the computer program has memories and logic directly pertaining to the new social situation, but that would not necessarily be the case.

>>8615728
>if you don't agree with my definition of intelligence than you are a brainlet according to my definition of intelligence

>>8616087
No social situation is completely new, not in the globalized world we live in. We always can use our memory to get through

>>8616084
>Information stored in memory
You don't have any. Did you read?

The point is, no amount of memory or pattern recognition skills will help you because there is no data to make a pattern and no memory to draw on. As per your assertion, this is a form of intelligence that doesn't depend on memory and pattern recognition.

>>8616090

That's not completely true. The most simple example is a baby. The baby has no experiences.

Yet, you can drop that baby off in China and it will learn Mandarin, the US and it will learn English, Finland and it will learn Finish, etc.

A general purpose AI is still missing. That problem has not been solved yet.

>>8615728
for me intelligence boils down to being able to talk to people without sounding like a complete asshole
one example of sounding like an asshole is when you call others "brainlets"

>>8615741
>>8615754
But does it blend?

>>8615728
I'd count myself and the other theoretical physicists I work with as being quite intelligent--yet all of us have par/sub-par memories.

>>8616453
well, MOST i should say

File: backinmyday-boil.jpg (31KB, 350x500px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 350x500px

>>8615728
>intelligence boils down to memory and pattern recognition
>boils down
things don't "boil down" any more, Grandpa

A schizophrenic figured out crazy math because of it. Pattern recognition helps with that stuff. However you can't measure it. As most genuis types are bat shit nuts.

>>8615754
>>8616475
Am I missing something
Why is that wrong

>>8616101
Could you use the internet as neurons? As its the only thing on a machine level I could see working. As if all the parts of the brain are there in a physical place and they can communicate with each other. Then all you really need is a person to teach the AI. Like you would teach a baby to say a single word. Would take sometime though once you get the machine to understand how to say one word like that you're done. As at that point a spark neuron should cause a chain reaction. Just like the brain.

>>8616499
i can confirm that most geniuses are bat shit nuts. im bat shit nuts myself, but im not a genius

>>8615728
Her voice at 14 is deeper than mine and most my adult male friends'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXyaTKBYqpk

>>8615728
And associations, made possible by healthy neural pathways. It's beyond belief how severely retarded most kids are these days. Most of them have fat brains to match their bad eating habits. The food they stuff in their mouth makes them, as impossible as it sounds, more stupid than their parents: most of whom are divorced or co-dependent. Those fat retard kids are so disgusting: they waddle.

>>8616055
Is creativity a form of intelligence?

>>8616055
Text and art interpretation.

>>8616508
>Am I missing something
Yes.
>Why is that wrong
...bcoz intelligence does not "boil down".

>>8616543

one could argue that creativity is a symptom of intelligence.

>>8616068
you oribably make an educated guess. You compare the situation to others you've experienced and you try to see things from he others perspective. You use your experiences and extrapolate on the patterns you find to "simulate" the future and decide accordingly.

>>8616100
?
Is this supposed to be the first social encounter the human ever had?
You always have data to draw conclusions from unless you literally just flashed into existence without memory.

It almost seems paradoxical to think that we could ever truly "understand" our brain thoroughly

>>8615728
I'm smart and I have a pretty shit memory.

>>8616101
he was talking about doing the right thing without any direct pertaining experiences.
You are talking about learning to do something. The hypothetical unpredictable social gathering thing is much different than a baby learning a language. The first will mostly be solved by using your memory, because you put on your clothes before you arrive. There is not much learning involved. The baby however recognizes patterns in the languages and reproduces them to speak it.

>>8615728
>intelligence
yes, that is a narrow definition of what a brain does though

>>8616553
most of the time meaning in text and art is conveyed in the form of analogies, metaphors or symbols, which are all in essence pretty similar and they workthrough pattern recognition.
For example different objects might be arranged in a specific way on a painting to convey a relation (for example high - low for hierarchy). You can recognize this as a pattern you know from social behaviour and therefpre figure out the relation between the objects.
I know I picked out a specific way of putting meaning in srt so I could have cherry picked but give me something else and (If I can even interpret it) Ill tell you how its related to pattern recognition and memory.

>>8616789
Many stupid people think they are smart. Just think how stupid the average person is and realize half the people are stupider than that.

>>8616789
You do have a mempry though. So it doesn't refute OPs hypothesid

>>8616803
he didnt say the actions of the brain boil down to X but intelligence does.

>>8616815
>he didn't say the actions of the brain boil down to X but intelligence does
we're saying the same thing here

>>8616821
Wait you just stated that intelligence != all that the brain does so you cant say we're talking about the same thing.
I just pointed out that the brain could be an important part in circulating your blood or whatever and it wouldnt matter to OPs point.

>>8616805
>most of the time meaning in text and art is conveyed in the form of analogies, metaphors or symbols, which are all in essence pretty similar and they workthrough pattern recognition.


Question from this other thread:

>>8615573

>Do you think that a mind that is able to see metaphorical conections between very diferent things, and even between abstractions and concrete things (for example: "to dive in the bosom of the deep and pluck drowned honor by the locks", or "the star-eaten old blanket of the night"); do you thing that a mind that perceive such patters all the time is a somewhat gifted mind?

>>8616100
>>8616101
Pattern recognition doesn't necessary requires memory. Recognizing patterns in situations (even new situations) depends solely on information pertaining to that situation. At first, a baby doesn't have information about a language, but as time goes by, he listens to sounds, recognize that they have meaning and can be combined to form sentences.

>>8616543
Is one of the skills required to define intelligence. You can be really smart you have a lot of logic but little creativity, but you'll be smarter if you are not only able to concatenate information but to create new stuff.

>>8616789
Not all smart people have good memory. If you were truly smart you'd be able to deduce that

>>8615728
Who are you quoting?

>>8616543
Creativity is your brain breaking down all its memories, then re-combining them. It's called "inspiration" but that's what it is.

It's quite prominent in music, where musicians subconsciously re-create a tune they already heard without realising.

Like when Lily Allen accidentally lifted the melody from Shine by Take That for that song of hers.

That's an on-the-nose example but that's basically what's happening when you think of a tune - but it's usually bits and pieces of all your musical influences rather than one.

File: asuka.jpg (29KB, 279x304px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 279x304px

ITT: people who either agree with OP or brainlets who could not prove OP wrong via the use of a valid example

>>8617190
I am just here for Jodie and her lipsmacking. What was she trying to convey here?

>>8617265
She's a reincarnate like the girl from Youjo Senki but also a slut who craves cock.

>>8616785
Yeah I've always thought that for an organism to understand its own brain there would have to be a 1:1 neurons:cognition ratio - in other words each neuron would need the capacity to comprehend the behaviour of one neuron in order for the brain to comprehend the brain.

I could be wrong but I don't think a neuron is capable of understanding a neuron, so we cannot understand our own brains.

>>8616516

Definitely. That would be very, very analogous to how the brain works.

That is called distributed machine learning, and people like Andrew Ng and companies like Baidu are pushing the boundaries of what we can do with distributed machine learning.

I think it will take some time for computer scientists to evolve solutions that are as sophisticated as the brain, but, excitingly, that seems to be the direction the field is heading.

>>8615728
Fuck
When you put it that way, I just realized how painfully mediocre I am

>>8617372
heres another fun thing you probably know about

people have identified ion channels in the brain (nmda for example) that react differently depending on how they were stimulated in the past. this may lead to synapses having different weights

this reminds me a lot of neural nets

>>8617376

In fact, neural networks are biologically inspired. That's probably why they seem so familiar to you,

> In 1943, neurophysiologist Warren McCulloch and mathematician Walter Pitts wrote a paper on how neurons might work.

Neural networks got popular and then fell out of fashion, because they were stochastic and hard to explain (people often called them black boxes).

Now they are back in fashion and are being rebranded.

>>8617190

You are grossly oversimplifying. Might as well call computer programs electricity. It shows your lack of understanding and your ego.

>>8617416
How is that oversimplifying? What are the nuances of intelligence that are not contemplated by that statement?

File: ahmed.jpg (42KB, 744x666px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 744x666px

>>8617416
yet another brainlet with no valid examples for proof. just more

>muh u cant just simplify it like that its wrong!!!!

File: nyuu.png (363KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 640x480px

For those of you who don't get why OP makes sense:

What is intelligence? It's not how much you know, or else how could any child possibly be intelligent? It's how good you are at figuring stuff out. How do you figure stuff out? You observe patterns and make a guess as to what the next item in the "pattern" will be. So we've established that intelligence primarily relies on pattern recognition. But why memory? The better your memory is, the more you will be able to remember. Thus, you will have a larger body of knowledge on which to draw upon when trying to figure stuff out. That, good people of /sci/, is why intelligence boils down primarily to pattern recognition, and secondarily to memory.

>>8617416
You can't simplify computer programs to electricity. Computer programs actually do something. So, if you're trying to simplify it, the electricity must also be doing something.

And secondly, the reduction of intelligence is not analogous to the reduction of computer programs. Every single human being has intelligence from the time they are in their mother's womb, so it must boil down to some essential skills that a fetus is capable of. Can the same be said of computer programs?

>>8617906
>There's patterns everywhere. And all kinds of them

Exactly why intelligence boils down primarily to pattern recognition.

>The "next item" can often be more than one thing.

Right, which is why you need intelligence to tell you which "item" would be the best option.

>You need to have some sense too.

Right, sense as in common sense. How does one improve their common sense? By learning more things. By gaining more knowledge and observing more patterns, and namely HOW the next item was deduced. That's what builds common sense.

>Some sense of likelihood

Gained by experiencing more things. Namely, by gaining more knowledge and observing more patterns

>You need to be able to combine patterns

Right, another skill developed by gaining more knowledge and observing more patterns.

>and sometimes come up with the "first item".

Possible by combining patterns, like you said.

>you need a drive to actually fill up your memory, a will

Will has nothing to do with intelligence. Two completely separate concepts.

Try harder brainlet.

>>8617934
>another skill developed
Entirely wrong.

This is something you are born with, it's not learnt. You can be extremely good at recognizing patterns and have a good memory but not have imagination, talent.

Also, will HAS to do a lot with intelligence and how your memory turns out. What your basis is for your patterns.

There's also external factors which can hinder your progress. Naturally if your system includes a "memory dimension" progress is expected to be made. Call it luck, chance.

Deleted my previous post because I wanted to clarify something, but that's ok now.

>>8617945
>This is something you are born with, it's not learnt

Who are you to say which skills a human fetus has and which skills it doesn't? Isn't it more logical to assume that it IS a skill that can be learned, namely by gaining more knowledge and observing more patterns?

>Also, will HAS to do a lot with intelligence

Agreed. Someone who has a strong will can undoubtedly learn faster and thus increase their intelligence faster than the average person. But to say that will plays some role in DETERMINING intelligence is just plain wrong because, as I said, they are two completely separate concepts.

>>8617959
>Naturally if your system includes a "memory dimension" progress is expected to be made

Which is why I included the memory dimension in the first place. Intelligence doesn't just boil down to pattern recognition, it's pattern recognition AND memory.

>>8617959
>Isn't it more logical to assume
No, it isn't.
It's genetics. You don't learn talent and imagination.

Your model does not actually make it obvious why 'will' is separate from intelligence. Actually if you have no will you will have no intelligence, because your memory would be empty and your pattern recognition would be crap.

Unless you mean the type of pattern recognition that doesn't require any memory, but that's really not what you said in your original post.

Or did you mean 'the ability to remember'? Well then you are contradicting yourself again. Just because you have the ability doesn't mean you 'have remembered', which doesn't mean your pattern recognition will be based of any useful experience.
>>8617963
Oh, I see. Then you ought to include 'will'. Or an instinct and desire to expand your horizons.

Hmm, another thing your missing is craftsmanship. Are you good at projecting what you have inside your head into something real? Are you able to create?

But you say to me, 'that has nothing to do with intelligence'

It does actually. Such abilities aren't in your hands, they are precisely in your head.

>>8617984
Don't you see, though? Intelligence is the ability to teach yourself new things. You say well you're not creative, you're not good at craftsmanship, you're not good at other things of a creative nature. So how do you get good at it? How do you get good at painting, or playing piano, or building houses, or talking to people in social settings, or other things like that? By gaining experience in those areas, and then practicing those skills. How do you practice piano? Discipline. How do you teach yourself discipline? You realize the fact that if you invest time right now, you will make great returns on your investment in the future. Everything always comes down to your ability to make logical decisions. And I don't want to include will because that would imply people with a strong will must be happy (I have a strong will to learn. I have worked hard and learned a lot. In doing so, I have great pattern recognition skills and memory. I am intelligent. I'm not happy? Oh, I know how to solve that problem. Let's get started on the solution.)

>>8618007
And also, I think it's silly to nitpick the memory thing. Can we not agree that all humans are born with the ability to remember (i.e. memory)?

>>8618014
>(i.e. memory)

or rather, the ability to create memories

File: ew.jpg (27KB, 375x354px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 375x354px

>>8617575
>>8617840
>>8617855
>>8617871
>>8617934
>>8617959


/sci/ just isn't what it used to be. Peace out bitch.

>>8618007
You can learn all those things, but you won't be a genius. You won't be as brilliant as someone who was born special.
Maybe instead of 'will' call it curiosity. Whatever it is, it is a part of your brain as much as memory is. And it's relevant at the same time. A sort of a hunger for knowledge.

Now, your motor cortex is part of your brain too, doesn't necessarily mean it should matter, so craftsmanship was maybe going a little too far.

>>8618014
I can't agree with this. Some people remember better than others. There is no way genes aren't involved in determining how well you can remember. There's also people born with different memory 'quirks'. Like associating numbers with colors, photographic memory in children etc.

>>8618024
please don't come back

>>8618024
so in other words, you can't think of a good rebuttal and decided to say "/sci/ just isn't what it used to be."

Your logic has absolutely destroyed my argument. Good work.

>>8618027
>You can learn all those things, but you won't be as brilliant as someone who was born special.

I agree. But why are some people amazingly good at things like, math, playing piano, drawing, etc. at a young age? It is because everyone is born with some level of innate intelligence. For prodigies, it was a very high level of innate intelligence, for most people, it's average, and for some people, it is quite low.

So naturally if you're born with the intelligence of a grown man you will be able to figure things out and become proficient at an extremely fast pace, and thus appear to be a prodigy.

>A sort of hunger for knowledge

Will a hunger for knowledge allow you to increase your intelligence faster than others? Definitely. Does a hunger for knowledge DETERMINE your intelligence? Not at all.

>Some people remember better than others.

Agreed. But that's not the same as saying "some people aren't born with the ability to remember."

So basically, your innate pattern recognition skills can be very high, average, or quite low at the time of your birth.

Similarly, your ability to remember can be very high, average, or quite low at the time of your birth.

Everyone has a different starting point, but everyone also has the ability to improve their intelligence.

>>8616532
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXyaTKBYqpk

Dang she was a dyke way back then. Sat in that chair just like a dude with boots.

>>8618062
>Will a hunger for knowledge allow you to increase your intelligence faster than others? Definitely. Does a hunger for knowledge DETERMINE your intelligence? Not at all.
It does.

Actually a brain isn't static. There is flexibility in the tissue. Especially at younger ages. There is documented cases of hippocampus growing in size(in adults) in relation to memory intensive tasks. So in a sense you are right, you can improve your intelligence, but not more than some genetic limit you happen to have.

>>8618091
Even sounds like a guy. Never knew that face was a response to "What kind of fella would you like?"

>>8618095
You're saying that the hunger for knowledge is a trait determined by your genetics, but how can you know such a thing? Tons of people are able to greatly exceed the intelligence of their parents, prodigies or not.

>>8616789
Dunning-Kruger Effect at work everyone.

>>8615728
Would it make me intelligent if I was able to apply the Dunning-Kruger Effect to myself when faced with a new subject or job, so I am not overly confident and ignorant?

>>8618127
Yes, definitely. In fact, you ought to think the worst of yourself so that your expectations will always be exceeded, and thus letting you know you're not as dumb as you think.

File: image.png (48KB, 1125x794px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 1125x794px

>>8617575
>>8617840
>>various others
Nobody still responded to my post.
>I bet you think the people on this show were actually "smart".
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brain_(game_show)

Someone give me an argument why these people are "smart". Then justify why they're so "smart" but haven't done anything notable before being on a tv show.

Intelligence is very hard to define, if possible. If the contestants of this television show are so intelligent, why aren't they putting Von Neumann or Edward Witten to shame? Because "intelligence" is not as simple as the brainlets itt would have you believe. Or those same brainlets are basically in league with the morons from the tv show and realize that you can be "intelligent" by this inane definition of "memory and pattern recognition" and also lazy. Which means "intelligence" (as others view one having it) is not based on only memory and pattern recognition but more importantly - as far as others can observe "intelligence" - stuff you make. Shit you make or papers you write causes one to appear more intelligent than one is. The guy with 100 peer reviewed and published papers usually looks "more intelligent" than the guy with only 10.

Also, only a brainlet doesn't realize that IQ tests are all based on memory and pattern recognition. And only a brainlet thinks IQ tests aren't bullshit.

>>8615763
Ah yes, a complete idiot who doesn't even try to read

>>8615728
When did Jodi foster first start fucking girls? Did she ever sleep with guys?

>>8615728
>pattern recognition
thats literally all life is

>>8618244
you fucking retard keep thinking of intelligence as your IQ bullshit dick length measure.
We are talking about intelligence in a general. These people are all smart. You literally need to have down sybdrome or something to be considerably less smart than other humans.
Now you might argue that OP's criteria are incorrect because ghey can't be applied to distibguish smarter humans from less smarter humans.
But since OPs post tried to extremely reduce the complexity of intelligence it is obvious that due to the fact how many effective layers of skills are built ontop of these basic skills, it is not easy to judge from them directly if the difference in intelligence is only a nuance,as it is the case inbetween humans.
And the only tests for human intelligence that exist are based on pattern recognition anyways.

>>8615728
Who are you quoting?

>>8615728
Why do all cute girls have to be gay baka?

>>8618244
> If the contestants of this television show are so intelligent, why aren't they putting Von Neumann or Edward Witten to shame?

Just because someone has intelligence doesn't mean they are obligated to use their intelligence for the purpose of furthering scientific discovery. What kind of argument is that? I could be smart as hell and maybe want to use that intelligence to start a business or something, not study science.

Couldn't find anything else worth explaining in your post..

>>8618396
After a dude tried to assassinate the president to impress her she was like "I'm so done with guys".

>>8618396

asking the real questions here.

Why are some people getting offended by this?

>>8620403
Psychology isn't a science.

>>8620406

This has more to do with reading comprehension no?

>>8620408
Well put.

>>8620403

Because OP is a pseudo-intellect that clearly doesn't know shit.

File: kanye no.gif (384KB, 342x198px) Image search: [Google]

384KB, 342x198px

>>8621427
and anon is yet another brainlet with no means of proving me wrong so he just cries

>muh pseudo intellect haha so dumb!!

File: poo.jpg (10KB, 309x309px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 309x309px

>>8621442

Seems like you might be trying to stir up a shit storm because suddenly I see a bunch of shit everywhere on /sci/. You are not worth my time trololol.

>>8621447
I had an idea. I think my idea is right. I'm looking for someone to prove to me why my idea is wrong. Not exactly rocket science, buddy

>>8615728
>memory
I would specify as working memory.

Sure long term can help you relate certain situations, but that's not what people understand intelligence to be. (ie Ive seen a puzzle like this before). Being able to reason through new problems easily is much more impressive.

>>8621509
For sure. The PRIMARY requirement for intelligence is pattern recognition. But the ability to create memories is still a secondary requirement, because even if your pattern recognition skills are on par with a computer, you won't be able to teach yourself anything new unless you have memories you can draw information from.

File: 1481652992499.jpg (114KB, 640x708px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 640x708px

Brain patterns are only part of the story.

If the patterns are simply memories of bible stories, that brain should go in the furnace with the other animals.

If the patterns are for mathematics and/or physical laws, it might be useful.

>>8621581
>If the patterns are simply memories

You can't equate pattern recognition with memory, they're two separate things. If you meant to say that someone can have great pattern recognition but only draws information from their memory of bible stories, then yes I agree that their brain should go in the furnace.

>>8621590
that's not to say that the person is unintelligent, though.

Emotional maturity. Experiential and academic intelligence.

>>8617190
ITT: brainlets who agree with OP or brainlets who could not prove OP wrong
fify

>>8621833
Emotional maturity has nothing to do with intelligence. I've gone into great depth discussing what I mean by intelligence. It's not my fault if you were too lazy to read the thread.

>>8621846
Looks like you fall in the latter category Lol

>>8620392
Wait, what?

>>8615741
>>8615754
>>8616508
>>8616656
uh no it boils up

>>8622106
BBoiling must occur but only perceieved in a "boiling down" True boiling must lways up never down but in fact the process of boiling is by nature "down" since all must boil as is the state of boiltrophy

>>8615728
It boils down into memory, pattern recognition, problem solving and creativity.

>>8622134
Problem solving is figuring stuff out. Figuring stuff out is recognizing patterns.

See creativity argument >>8618007

>>8618007
>>8622139
>You say well you're not creative, you're not good at craftsmanship, you're not good at other things of a creative nature
Those activities aren't inherently creative, but people that are creative excel at them. With practice and discipline, you will become proficient at it, but in order to one excel at it, you must be creative, i.e., make spontaneous associations with information pertaining to the area or not.

Regarding memory: it is not part of intelligence, it only helps one use it.
>inb4 if it helps with intelligence it is part of it
Focus is also external to intelligence, but it helps it. People with ADHD can't really focus, yet they are likely to be very intelligent.
Likewise, there are people with remakable memory skills that are mentally retarded, because they lack both logic and creativity.

>>8615728
Anecdotal but I have mild hyperthymesia(random "photographic memory") and my brain can't figure out how to numerical integration.

>>8617380
I heard it was the enormity of setting all the weights that made it fall out of favour, until someone came up with back propagation.

>>8622213
I think that creativity can be "learned", mainly because there are normal people who can gain complete mastery over an art. And you might say "but no, the prodigy has an even higher level of proficiency and they are truly gifted"
But how do you determine how well someone plays? By hearing them play. If you saw a "normal" pianist who has been playing for 40 years and you saw a prodigy who has been playing for 40 years, you likely wouldn't know the difference because they both have achieved a complete mastery, they've "maxed out" that type of intelligence. Then, I guess you could compare which of the two pianists composes better music, but it is up to the audience to decide whether they like a certain piece of music or not.

And as for the memory thing, that has also been cleared up earlier in the thread. By memory, I mean the ability to create memories. See here >>8621545

>>8622509
What would you say about Beethoven or Mozart then? Why do other musicians, even the ones who learn to play from an early age and become as proficient as one can, don't get to create pieces as groundbreaking as the former did?

>>8622529
I personally think you're being biased. You say Mozart and Beethoven are groundbreaking musicians because their work has lived on for around 200 years after their deaths. But how do you know there aren't multiple groundbreaking musicians alive today? No one knows who will be the most groundbreaking and influential of our current generation. Only the future generations will be able to ponder that question, just like how the generations that followed Mozart and Beethoven believed their work to be important and influential. Basically, you're saying "This person has lived on through history for hundreds of years after their death. They must have had some unimaginable talent, that's why they lived on." But then shouldn't you be assuming that every single person who has ever lived on in history must have had some unimaginable talent?

>>8622080
Look it up it happened. Taxi driver? Ronald Reagan?

>>8622584
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_assassination_of_Ronald_Reagan
Here's a link

>>8622080
There was an American Dad episode where Stan went back in time, got Scorsese off pot, meaning he never made TD, which meant Reagan wasn't emboldened by the assassination attempt and, as a result everything was different in the present.

>>8617345

Intelligent men of /sci/, Whats easier: for a men to truly understand his own mind, or for a computer to simulate the universe 1:1?

Intelligence is how well this information is organised into the neurons for prime use and reaponse

Id say:

>knowledge = memory x experience

So intelligence is how well you use memory and transforms it into a guide to change your world. A man who can remember everything but can barelly use it is just stupidy and no better than an enciclopedia. I'm repeating myself, I need sleep.

anyone who still believes human brain cannot be fully simulated by computer is somewhere with the christians fighting the thought of human evolution from monkeys. Today it's an idea hard to accept, tomorrow it will be the most usual thing you see when you wake up.

btw mouse brain has already been simulated and it's basically human brain 1000x smaller.

>>8615728
http://4chan.org/pol/

>>8616532
Sounds like you and your friends are faggots.