@itsfreerealestate That we should realize and remember we are all different. By doing that we are more patient when talking with people and less prone to argue about indifferences.
@kristijan0kroflin I chose "parents" because I was responding to ShrodingerFu's comment. As for your point on words and things being arbitrary, we--dare I say it?--are on the same wavelength. We can teach a child a different name for different colors, but we can't teach a child to see grass and blood as the same color. Unless, I suppose, it's a Vulcan child.
There are indeed many things to admire in Feynman. The one that strikes me as the most unusual however is his childlike curiosity and enthusiasm about absolutely everything. I don't know why, but sadly most people lose that at some point.
This is an incredibly insightful point. I've wondered about this many times myself.
Now for a mindfuck:
When you look at the leaves of a tree you see green. Obvious right? Well, what makes you think that YOUR experience of green is anything like MY experience of green. How your "green" looks to you might be what I recognize as orange. Who's to say? Whenever we reference something outside of ourselves that we can both point to it will match, but we might be seeing COMPLETELY different things...
@TheStigma I have also thought of that 0.0! but then u realize that while that could be true it is very unprobable because our physiology is similar and the light waves are the same...bu it could still be a bit different..
@TheStigma I agree with guillefix. However, what you said still holds true on a psychological level. What each of us perceives as green is just a recognition of pattern which was taught to us at an early age. Your parents tell you the grass is green so you begin making correlations. Because of this a parent could make their child legally color blind by isolating and teaching them that grass is red. What he sees may be similar to what we see, but his brain makes all the wrong connections.
@ShrodingerFu Say a parent taught a child that what we see as blue is red and that what we see as red is red. I think the kid would still be able to distinguish red from blue.
@acr08807 I naturally want to agree with that as well in understanding that there are no physiological problems with the child's perception. However common sense is that which tells us the world is flat. There is a BBC special on the Himba tribe that suggests language has a stronger correlation with language than we might have imagined. (although the Himba tribe does have a method for how they organize color. So my point is moot really.)
I used to juggle 5 balls a lot and I'd count all of my catches every time. One day I realized that even if I didn't consciously count the number of catches, my brain would still count them for me. This didn't work very well after 70 or so catches though, and sometimes it was difficult to turn the subconsciously known number into it's conscious from.
I feel lucky that we are all, who are watching this video, born in a time where the most elegant of mathematics has already been invented for us, and its our privilege to grasp all that math. I taught math to bachelors students, and I feel lucky that we got all this technology, we can see Feynman whenever we want to on our iPhone, and imagine, and grow our understanding, work hard and learn math and science and contribute. we are lucky guys.... We should make the most of it!!
This man has singlehandedly changed the way o view the world forever. He is the reason i got into physics, and i will allways love him for that. I get payed to do something i would do for free, heck i would pay to do it, thats how much fun i have (sure it also has its dry and frustrating sides, sometimes for weeks, but the payout in the end is worth every bit of frustration, believe me)doing physics for a living. He awoke that fascination in me
THANK YOU RICHARD, I OWE YOU MORE THEN I CAN TELL !
@williamblakeism Sorry english is a foreign languag to me ^^ But thanks for telling me, we live and learn , amd as feynman once said if you stoip learning you essentially stop living ;)
@jantiification I don't blame Feynman for never seriously touching the god topic because it's so polarizing, but you shouldn't blame Dawkins for having the balls to try. His arguments are reasonable, even the mean ones are based on logic & observation, and despite his reputation, he's rarely strident. I'm failing to see the bad science. If a scientist wants to walk on eggshells around a controversial subject, by all means, but that should never be a requirement of a "great scientist".
I do see the point he makes about anyone being able to be brilliant. There is somewhat of a catch. It all boils down to passion. If you're passionate enough about something, you can't be stopped. Sure there's going to be absolute limitations on some things. Dreams die hard for those who aren't mentally or physically sound. Sometimes you can try and convince yourself that you like something, but if you continue to fall short you may need to reevaluate. Case and point: true passion cannot falter.
He's wrong. Intelligence and talent, whatever you want to call it, is very important. In the same way that not everyone can become a world class athlete, not everyone can become a brilliant scientist. Sure, you can study and get a good grasp of it, but unless you have a certain amount of intelligence, you're just not going to go that far, no matter how hard you try.
@ChudFapper Either he's deluded, as all he can speak from is personal experience, or he's just trying to give certain people the courage to take up physics. I think many people are daunted by physics, and the purpose of this series was to tackle that.
It's nice to think that you can do anything if you try hard enough but it's not true. Some people are naturally better at something than others. One can study mathematics or science and develop one's thinking sure, but some have a more natural grip of it and need less effort to accomplish same things that someone other needs to study very hard.
Holy fuck, Feynman never fails to leave me slackjawed with amazement. One of the most brilliant minds in the history of physics idly dabbling in cognitive psychology and making the sorts of discoveries that many in the latter discipline base a career upon. I love this guy.
Its amazing how he talks about "internal imagery" saysing that it is prolly very different in different mens heads. Its exactly the same conclustion another genious - Richard Bandler who has studied subjective experience of humans and called it NLP, came to.
I feel like I have 3 channels that I can store things to multitask with, loosely connected to my Auditory, Visual, and Tactile senses. Each can work on 1 thing at a time, and it can only work on things that relate to that sense.
Everything I read I internalize as audio, despite the fact that it's coming from my eyes. I recall every number, letter, and word as my voice saying that number/letter/word.
I've done both counting by imaginary hearing and counting by imaginary seeing. So I think Dr Feynman is wrong to conclude that what goes on inside different peoples' heads could be entirely different.
It seems more like the brain has several subsystems each of which can be co-opted to provide some function (counting) while the rest of the brain is otherwise busy (reading or speaking). Which method is chosen may depend on habit or necessity.
@elronxenu You've tried both because you've heard about them. But what if you just had to pick a way yourself. Would you have thought of every different way to do it on your own? What he meant to say, I think, is that usually people think about things very differently, and they won't change because they don't ever realize it's different, or even need to. Doesn't mean they can't change or that we can't think alike. Just means we usually don't in our normal lives.
I agree with him so much. i took geometry 3times in high school n thought i didnt have a math brain. a few years later i got the balls to tackle math so i could do what i loved, science. sill i was intimidated by the thought of quantum physics oooooooo. but if u train ur brain it can be what u want it to be. now math is one of my favorite things.
@jimmyti9cer This is one of our major problems in US education. Math and science have stereotype of an evil, uninspiring pedantry, combined with the ideas of "natural talent" & left brain-right brain crammed into every kid's head from birth, and most everyone comes out of primary saying the same thing: "I just don't have the brain for math & science. Too hard/boring."
It's not talent, it's practice. And what makes it hard is exactly what makes it NOT boring. It requires imagination.
@jimmyti9cer Similar story here, I figure mathematics without actually using any numbers. I like to see relationships and model them, evaluating them numerically is not yet of my interest because I think I'm heading towards abstract mathematics, like set theory, and sometimes I feel that it's like a car I'm driving.
@jimmyti9cer I agree, I like math, but my real passion is science, so I'm going to learn as much math as it takes, so I can do what I'm passion about beautiful SCIENCE!
What a brilliant, brilliant mind. For the last few months, he's fueled me with so much enthusiasm in what I do. My only regret is that ... I only found out about him recently. Never met you Richard, but I dearly miss you.
People say to me; "You're so lucky you can play the piano" and I say "It's not luck, it's playing the damn thing for hours every day for 20 years!". Feynman is right (as always), if someone devotes time, thought and focus to something then over time they become a expert and understand that pursuit to a fine subtlety.
I must have watched these videos ten times. Such joyous wisdom.
I also thought people think differently aswell, but I didn't really guess how. It's kind of interesting to know people count differently in their head, I count like Feynman does. How do you guys count in your head? That other guy who sees it visually is insane.
Outliers: “In study after study, of composers, basketball players, fiction writers, ice-skaters, concert pianists, chess players, master criminals, this number comes up again and again. Ten thousand hours is equivalent to roughly three hours a day, or 20 hours a week, of practice over 10 years… No one has yet found a case in which true world-class expertise was accomplished in less time. It seems that it takes the brain this long to assimilate all that it needs to know to achieve true mastery“
The results may not always be mind blowing, but every now and then something comes along that makes all that "thinking for the sake of thinking" worthwhile.
I love Feynman, and I think he was a genius whether he knew/admitted it or not.
This part of the interview shows best the gains to be hand by paying a bunch of very smart people to just sit around and think about stuff. (Otherwise known as academia ...)
Minds of Faynman's caliber (be they trained, naturally gifted if such a thing exists, or otherwise) will mull over problems and scenarios in their heads and come up with interesting and very often useful theories to explain all kinds of phenomena.
listen closely gentlemen. There have been few people in the history of mankind like this man. Wittgenstein, Newton, Einstein...Feynman. Both the lucidity of his expression and the quality of his thought speak for his genius.
Interesting how they do that. I suppose I count by just having numbers pop into my mind. Big white numbers on a black screen. I read it in my mind though.
Not as much as others, which is a shame. He's is a great scientist. Feynman is also a former Manhattan Project scientist! He helped create the first atomic bomb.
@Ko252 Leonardo, Galileo ,Antoine Lavoisier, Faraday, Maxwell hertz,Max plank, and Eddington all who where pieces of the jigsaw puzzle of Einsteins BIG IDEA.
@Ko252 Tesla? Meh. He came up with quite a few things which (I believe) were proven false. Correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe say what exactly he discovered? I've never really looked into his work.
@FinnishFuturist he invented the AC motor, fluorescent lamp, he created the first rudimentary digital circuit at the end of XIV century, he created the first remote control circuit, controlling remotely a small boat, he invented the radio (Marconi ripped him and Tesla won, after his death, the title as the radio inventor), he invented the first concept of a death ray as a ray of condensed energy, he imagined the concept of long distance telecommunication, electricity without wires and many more
@HairyPotter2006 No, he never invented the fluorescent lamp. Becquerel first examined fluorescence 30, 40 years before him. Edison probably had the earliest patent on a fluorescent lamp design. But the first practical fluorescent lamps were invented years after this. If Tesla was tinkering with these lamps at the time he was not alone at any time so aye.
Yea, he was first to patent the 3 phase AC motor but the work on this motor predates Tesla by so many years.
It's tragic we don't have people like Feynman around anymore. The job of making physics interesting for the general population is left in the hands of retarded dumbfucks like Michio Kaku, who does nothing but getting cocaine-high on the publicity of lies, ridiculous exaggerations and incoherent, self-contradicting technological fantasies, to the point of delusions of grandeur. If only someone in the field would speak out about this, the coming generation takes him seriously because of his Ph.D.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
this guy thinks he's so smart, or someone has told him he is, but to me, its just common sense, yet he acts like its a great experiment and major discoveries that peoples brains fall into familiar patterns.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
i don,t agree with him that anyone can learn anything. most people could never understand most things in science. it takes a special mind or we,d all be scientists and no one would believe in gods.
Genius is defined by devoting a great deal of time (10,000 hours lets say) to some specific task. Real life examples include Einstein (he'd lock himself into his room for hours and hours studying problems. If you can do this for years and not give up like he did you will become just as proficient). Bill Gates sat at one of the earlier computers and programmed all day long for years. He didn't surf the web (there wasn't one then), he learned and studied for hours everyday focusing on one thing.
@ChukCharcoales o.k. lets say 4 years. still don,t agree. study as much as you can, on one subject, why aren,t einsteins everywhere? did you know his brain wasn,t normal? he could not even speak before the age of 4. why are there people who still think a god made everything we can see today? no. special people are born to teach and mr and mrs average stand in awe and wish we could understand the same. it,s not about studying the problem, it,s about solving it.
Genius is something else, there's a lot of argument about it. What you're thinking of is "mastery," a point at which the brain has restructured itself to its work. And even masters aren't everywhere because the estimated time to achieve JUST mastery is 10 years of "effortful study," always pushing the limit of ability. Very few people are willing to make that kind of sacrifice, most don't have (or don't believe they have) the time. See "The Expert Mind" at Scientific American re this.
There aren't more Einsteins everywhere because finding someone who can study for hours on a particular subject everyday is extraordinarily rare. However, when you do find someone who can devote a vast amount of time to a subject, you will see be amazed at their proficiency. (look at pro athletes, musicians, actors, gamers, scientists, etc.) Genetics does play some role, but a gift does not correlate to achievement as much as hard work does.
@bdf2718 If he was able to buy DOS for a song, that, if anything, shows how much of a slick businessman he was. People can learn to play by looking at other's music and emulating it; mimicking and copying experts is a very effective way to learn material. Gates grabbing code from garbage cans so he could learn it shows, if anything, a strong motivation to learn.
Ripping off of colleges is not commendable if you care about ethics, which i don't think bill gates really cared about.
He bought DOS for a song. Gary Kildall created CP/M as a crappy, cut-down clone of Unix shells of the time. Seattle Computer Products cloned CP/M (with all its limitations) as 86-DOS (also known as QDOS for quick and dirty OS).
Bill heard IBM wanted an OS and had rejected CP/M because Kildall was boning an IBM exec's wife, so nipped down the street and bought QDOS for a song.
@bdf2718 There was so much money at stake, I would have probably done the same thing. We can see the results of his perhaps-not-so-ethical opportunistic business practices, billions of dollars in personal wealth. Says something about society, doesn't it. Sucks that I'm not in a similar situation as Bill. Oh well, we can't have the decision to make billions of dollars in exchange for a few shrewd business decisions.
You can see it as about greed (and I might have succumbed too). I see it as Gates setting back computing by about 20 years. Atari, Amiga and Acorn had better than Windows before Windows came out. Bill drove them out of business and we all suffered as a consequence.
Bill Gates set back computer/human interaction by about 10 years. It took Windows 10 years to get even close to the user interfaces that were around when Windows were released.
As far as security and reliability are concerned, Windows is about 20 years behind.
Back when Windows 95 came out, I was using an Acorn Archimedes. Made by a small company in the UK who wrote their own OS and designed their own 32-bit processor (now called the ARM and is the most common processor on the planet). The GUI back then beats what Windows has now. It didn't look vastly different, but it was way more consistent and had far more shortcuts for commonly-used tasks (just one was right-click in a scroll area to scroll in reverse).
Every person who studies hard and devotes his/her time to science CAN become a scientist. Finally Feynman got it! There are no geniuses, no miracle people, there are just interested and uninterested people. The uninterested ones become uninteresting...
@ArianeQube Well, I don't agree. If our physical form, our bodies, can be so different from each other, our brains can as well. There's no way everybody in the world could be running fast enough to be Olympics material. It takes some basic features of your body to be correct. Ofcourse you wouldn't become fast if you didn't train, but some just have it, others don't. The same goes for the brain. Not everybody can be good at everything. But you can become BETTER by studying. Better than you were.
@ArianeQube But the master of a given field had it both. The interest, AND the brain suited for that particular field. Without interest, sure you won't become good at anything. But without the right hardwirering, you won't become great, even if you trained/studied every living hour of your life. You may be able to recite facts of the field, but thinking up new stuff? No way...
@ArianeQube He's mistaken to the highest degree actually. Einstein had an irregular brain. Depth and speed were increased; thus, imagination expanded.
All of us scientists who are "interested" stay "interested" (good word by the way) because we CAN. We cannot stop processing our "interest" as we interested!
Those that CAN NOT, CAN PHYSICALLY NOT, lose interest.
The only reason a person can't hold interest, is being incapable of it.
@D33veeoss Irregular brain? Tell me what a regular brain looks like. Depth and speed were not increaed, but he had ie. larger corpus callosum (like females), increasing the connectivity between brain hemispheres. That being said, where does imagination reside? Curiosity is not confined to the scientific mind alone. Of course you can lose interest. Ever heard about depression? You make to many false claims.
@D33veeoss It amazes me how much you have to write, to state your points. I most probably will not write as eloquently as you, but that fit perfectly with Feynman's spirit. 1. There are lots of reasons for abundantment of glial cells. It could be, as you state genetical, but a glial response is often a result of usage or brain injury (as in Parkinson, Huntington's etc.). As for larger brain, well, usage changes shape. Look for instance up, "taxi driver brain". Further on, Harvey is wrong.
when an 8 year child builds a 600ma electro-magnetic generator our of mechano, stereo magnets and spooled 40? gauge copper wire, and this 8 year old walks around the science fair talking with other scientists...
the kid might notice a distinct difference.
Later in life, this child might easily understand that it's 'rare a mind' that cares, or is curious, or even has the capacity to wonder about the same wonders much less find the inroads to solve them.
@D33veeoss Why? Because our brain is constant development, especially up to about the age of 30 year. The first two year of our life is incredible important to our intellectual abilities later in life, etc. Apropos the child, what child isnt curious? And do you really think that upbringing has nothing to say about our interest later in life?
I think that the child would be well bona fied when he's heard him/herself quoted by the likes of Socrates and Einstein and the like. I think the child would be well bona fied when few on the international circuit spark his interest, however, when exposed to quotes of the great minds of the past, even without knowing, claims that the idea is verbatim to his/her own ideology.
You are born with a capacity. What that capacity entails is forced. Some have 'uncovery' in that capacity ("invention" to the layman). Some have 'other'. You can't be what you're not. And yes, it's ridiculous to be skeptical about Mr. Einstein's brain anomalies as relates to his capacity. Existence of Savants rest my case without pause. Curiosity is not confined. No. I agree. Capacity to appease it is. Yes. If not appeased, curiosity doesn't grow. It wanes. Deteriorates.
@D33veeoss What capacity? What defines and constrains it? How can you be anything? Perhaps you are all, but a biological symbiosis, with the illusion of free will? If you have any understanding of neuroanatomy/-physiology, you would know that it is not ridiculous to be skeptical about the conjunction of anomalies and mental abilities. Existence of savants points to our mental abilities, but as do savant/geniuses like William James Sidis and the Polgar-sisters on the behalf of upbringing.
@D33veeoss "If these weren't areas wherein I haven't driven my focus towards prior, I'd be happy to absorb your ideation." No, you would not. How I know? " I can learn, but not from your likes." Enought said about this.
"Invasive patronization". Well, then why dont you read the literature thoroughly next time you try to argue? I guess you can't count your own scrarecriws and red herring evasions either. I mentioned The Polgar-sisters, because their father wrote the book "Bring Up Genius! ".
The second you speak of Susan and her sister and their father and the 6" thick '5334 puzzles' book I have on a ledge 9' from my head; well, that's the height of your audacity and we're certainly done with this rhetoric that you have confused with "discussion" or "conversation between 2 intellects."
The implication of "you use a lot of words because your intellect won't allow you more efficient pathways of communications," means that you opened with ad hominem. I'm not certain that precedent has ever been turned around in a conversation yet. When that garbage comes first, logic must come second.
A metaphysical teeter-totter. I'm climbing off now.
@D33veeoss I have never seen this as a discussion or conversation, but rectification. And what makes you think either of us are intellects? Because we quote the work of others? Ad hominem? Nope, I was justing the obvious, and I am still amazed how you feel the need to write. Apropos garbage; the fitting saying is: "Pearls before swine". You are sure damn secure about your unstanding, but that does not mean it is right. The sad part is, that you are writing this under the of Fayman. If you dont
PS- how many tournaments have you followed her through? What's your interest in her style? Do you even know which opening she's known for? Her most famous game?
Don't bother it's not necessary. I don't care what you know about her. I'm damn secure about my understanding and my witness. It's bona fied.
Don't get me wrong, I can learn, but not from your likes.
@D33veeoss understand the implication of that, then I feel sorry for you. Unlike you, I dont have problems learning from anyone. Regardless of your lack of valid arguments and exhaustive wordsmithery, I have learned alot from you. Even though you extensively try to polish up your exterior, your narcissitic core shines through. You hate to be corrected, even if you are wrong, and you have difficulties learning. It's bona fide.
But I'll agree that you might change from steam engine efficiencies into "what is a 'me'" type of questions. Where did so called 'me' begin? (clearly sperm and egg is a matter of semantics) What's information.
Depression might mold the direction of study, but never would depression truncate study in it's entirety.
If it did for you, then you need to see if you were appeasing your curiosity or just reading the text of great minds thinking that would suffice you as a critical thinker.
so the point of this is what, exactly?
itsfreerealestate 1 week ago
@itsfreerealestate That we should realize and remember we are all different. By doing that we are more patient when talking with people and less prone to argue about indifferences.
andydadandy 1 week ago
@itsfreerealestate What is the point of you?
thejojoshabadoo 3 days ago
@kristijan0kroflin I chose "parents" because I was responding to ShrodingerFu's comment. As for your point on words and things being arbitrary, we--dare I say it?--are on the same wavelength. We can teach a child a different name for different colors, but we can't teach a child to see grass and blood as the same color. Unless, I suppose, it's a Vulcan child.
acr08807 3 months ago
There are indeed many things to admire in Feynman. The one that strikes me as the most unusual however is his childlike curiosity and enthusiasm about absolutely everything. I don't know why, but sadly most people lose that at some point.
cristianfcao 3 months ago 2
*confused*
wjfox2006 4 months ago
This is an incredibly insightful point. I've wondered about this many times myself.
Now for a mindfuck:
When you look at the leaves of a tree you see green. Obvious right? Well, what makes you think that YOUR experience of green is anything like MY experience of green. How your "green" looks to you might be what I recognize as orange. Who's to say? Whenever we reference something outside of ourselves that we can both point to it will match, but we might be seeing COMPLETELY different things...
TheStigma 5 months ago
@TheStigma I have also thought of that 0.0! but then u realize that while that could be true it is very unprobable because our physiology is similar and the light waves are the same...bu it could still be a bit different..
guillefix 5 months ago
@TheStigma I agree with guillefix. However, what you said still holds true on a psychological level. What each of us perceives as green is just a recognition of pattern which was taught to us at an early age. Your parents tell you the grass is green so you begin making correlations. Because of this a parent could make their child legally color blind by isolating and teaching them that grass is red. What he sees may be similar to what we see, but his brain makes all the wrong connections.
ShrodingerFu 4 months ago
@ShrodingerFu Say a parent taught a child that what we see as blue is red and that what we see as red is red. I think the kid would still be able to distinguish red from blue.
acr08807 3 months ago
@acr08807 I naturally want to agree with that as well in understanding that there are no physiological problems with the child's perception. However common sense is that which tells us the world is flat. There is a BBC special on the Himba tribe that suggests language has a stronger correlation with language than we might have imagined. (although the Himba tribe does have a method for how they organize color. So my point is moot really.)
ShrodingerFu 2 months ago
mind = blown
sharpezor 5 months ago
Comment removed
sharpezor 5 months ago
I used to juggle 5 balls a lot and I'd count all of my catches every time. One day I realized that even if I didn't consciously count the number of catches, my brain would still count them for me. This didn't work very well after 70 or so catches though, and sometimes it was difficult to turn the subconsciously known number into it's conscious from.
TwistedLemniscate 5 months ago
I feel lucky that we are all, who are watching this video, born in a time where the most elegant of mathematics has already been invented for us, and its our privilege to grasp all that math. I taught math to bachelors students, and I feel lucky that we got all this technology, we can see Feynman whenever we want to on our iPhone, and imagine, and grow our understanding, work hard and learn math and science and contribute. we are lucky guys.... We should make the most of it!!
rohitaudipudi 5 months ago
This man has singlehandedly changed the way o view the world forever. He is the reason i got into physics, and i will allways love him for that. I get payed to do something i would do for free, heck i would pay to do it, thats how much fun i have (sure it also has its dry and frustrating sides, sometimes for weeks, but the payout in the end is worth every bit of frustration, believe me)doing physics for a living. He awoke that fascination in me
THANK YOU RICHARD, I OWE YOU MORE THEN I CAN TELL !
MrRichardQED 6 months ago
@MrRichardQED
than*
Petty tick of mine.
williamblakeism 5 months ago
@williamblakeism Sorry english is a foreign languag to me ^^ But thanks for telling me, we live and learn , amd as feynman once said if you stoip learning you essentially stop living ;)
MrRichardQED 5 months ago
@MrRichardQED
:)
williamblakeism 5 months ago
"Now I'm talking like a psychologist and you know I know nothing about this"
Inmediate face after:
"I actually know everything..."
pran1zzle 6 months ago 7
I simply love the way he used his brain :) And what an extraordinarily nice person he was!
edbbob 6 months ago
@jantiification I don't blame Feynman for never seriously touching the god topic because it's so polarizing, but you shouldn't blame Dawkins for having the balls to try. His arguments are reasonable, even the mean ones are based on logic & observation, and despite his reputation, he's rarely strident. I'm failing to see the bad science. If a scientist wants to walk on eggshells around a controversial subject, by all means, but that should never be a requirement of a "great scientist".
andid 6 months ago 2
I just love how he laughs like Sheldon (The big bang theory) at 0:56
Richard Feynman is my hero
Trollsnews 7 months ago
WAOW ! speak ... images !!!!!!!!!!!!!
ilyass2skate 7 months ago
Interesting experience to try
InfinityDz 7 months ago
How to get over 2500 views per night while you are asleep. Its so easy when you do exactly as I say in this video: /watch?v=uqwhomCAO6o
paquetstolte 8 months ago
I love this man
But at 2:17 he is talking about doing drugs hahahah
AndySiola 8 months ago 17
@AndySiola Just another reason to love him :) No bias, no prejudice, all knowledge and experience with a touch of modesty.
Paggee 2 weeks ago
NLP's submodalities explained by Richard Feynman!!
Incrue 9 months ago 2
@Incrue: Exactly!!! If NLP was not known in his times, he should be credited for inventing it :D And not only that!
Saskachewan 9 months ago
Mind = blown, this man is beyond brilliant.
ArmandoXIII 9 months ago
Oh...and Feynman discovering auditive versus visual thinking...genius.
AbsentiaeAddoAccendo 9 months ago
Genetic...a shame that genius has to lie, as opposed to people showing some respect.
AbsentiaeAddoAccendo 9 months ago
I wish I could count.
MomoTheBellyDancer 10 months ago
I do see the point he makes about anyone being able to be brilliant. There is somewhat of a catch. It all boils down to passion. If you're passionate enough about something, you can't be stopped. Sure there's going to be absolute limitations on some things. Dreams die hard for those who aren't mentally or physically sound. Sometimes you can try and convince yourself that you like something, but if you continue to fall short you may need to reevaluate. Case and point: true passion cannot falter.
jaredtk 10 months ago
He's wrong. Intelligence and talent, whatever you want to call it, is very important. In the same way that not everyone can become a world class athlete, not everyone can become a brilliant scientist. Sure, you can study and get a good grasp of it, but unless you have a certain amount of intelligence, you're just not going to go that far, no matter how hard you try.
ChudFapper 10 months ago
@ChudFapper Either he's deluded, as all he can speak from is personal experience, or he's just trying to give certain people the courage to take up physics. I think many people are daunted by physics, and the purpose of this series was to tackle that.
snackajack117 10 months ago
@ChudFapper "A genius is made, not born". You can train your brain to the same standard as that of a intellectual genius.
youruniquestyle 9 months ago
Aren't our minds powerful?
Gytax0 10 months ago
It's nice to think that you can do anything if you try hard enough but it's not true. Some people are naturally better at something than others. One can study mathematics or science and develop one's thinking sure, but some have a more natural grip of it and need less effort to accomplish same things that someone other needs to study very hard.
EnigmaticAminoAcid 10 months ago
Holy fuck, Feynman never fails to leave me slackjawed with amazement. One of the most brilliant minds in the history of physics idly dabbling in cognitive psychology and making the sorts of discoveries that many in the latter discipline base a career upon. I love this guy.
mjl718 11 months ago
wow
Oxyster7 11 months ago
GENIUS.Read his biography 'surely you're joking mr feynman'
sadathusain 11 months ago
just brilliant
maulcs 11 months ago
i also count in my head
crappymeal 11 months ago
If he's an "ordinary person" then I should be swinging from a tree by my tail while eating bananas.
deedubya286 11 months ago
Richard Feynman is the most interesting man in the universe
Buckbaggums 11 months ago
'there is no miracle people, they just cost interested in the stuff and worked hard!'
123conundrum 1 year ago
not forgetting hydro electricity.... :-)
kn0883r101 1 year ago
i love the way he explains and talks, it is very powerful and inspiring
savytaytay 1 year ago
the way he talks, somewhat reminds me of my grandfather lol
rohanesburg 1 year ago
Its amazing how he talks about "internal imagery" saysing that it is prolly very different in different mens heads. Its exactly the same conclustion another genious - Richard Bandler who has studied subjective experience of humans and called it NLP, came to.
apollon255 1 year ago
thumbs up if you are "doing an experiment to figure out something about your time sense" right now.
stabo10 1 year ago
I know it's dumb to compare Sheldon (from The Big Bang Theory) with Feynman but now I know where from he has that nerdy laugh ;))
MizNoFun 1 year ago
I feel like I have 3 channels that I can store things to multitask with, loosely connected to my Auditory, Visual, and Tactile senses. Each can work on 1 thing at a time, and it can only work on things that relate to that sense.
Everything I read I internalize as audio, despite the fact that it's coming from my eyes. I recall every number, letter, and word as my voice saying that number/letter/word.
mentalrectangle 1 year ago
Whats absolutely amazing in how the brain is mysterious to itself.
I wonder if intelligence is bounded by itself.
Master8laster 1 year ago
HOLYSHIT
mechazaowa 1 year ago
nice
MrPhumu 1 year ago
two words; MINDFUCK!
am gonna try see what kind of brain i am. can i count and read at the same time?
cyclotane 1 year ago
I've done both counting by imaginary hearing and counting by imaginary seeing. So I think Dr Feynman is wrong to conclude that what goes on inside different peoples' heads could be entirely different.
It seems more like the brain has several subsystems each of which can be co-opted to provide some function (counting) while the rest of the brain is otherwise busy (reading or speaking). Which method is chosen may depend on habit or necessity.
elronxenu 1 year ago
@elronxenu The right hemisphere thinks in images while the left thinks in words.
iroveashe 1 year ago
@elronxenu You've tried both because you've heard about them. But what if you just had to pick a way yourself. Would you have thought of every different way to do it on your own? What he meant to say, I think, is that usually people think about things very differently, and they won't change because they don't ever realize it's different, or even need to. Doesn't mean they can't change or that we can't think alike. Just means we usually don't in our normal lives.
BIZEB 1 year ago 2
fascinating discussion
dankheads 1 year ago
I agree with him so much. i took geometry 3times in high school n thought i didnt have a math brain. a few years later i got the balls to tackle math so i could do what i loved, science. sill i was intimidated by the thought of quantum physics oooooooo. but if u train ur brain it can be what u want it to be. now math is one of my favorite things.
jimmyti9cer 1 year ago 37
@jimmyti9cer That's very encouraging. Thanks. I actually love math, but am intimidated by it, too.
BIZEB 1 year ago
@jimmyti9cer This is one of our major problems in US education. Math and science have stereotype of an evil, uninspiring pedantry, combined with the ideas of "natural talent" & left brain-right brain crammed into every kid's head from birth, and most everyone comes out of primary saying the same thing: "I just don't have the brain for math & science. Too hard/boring."
It's not talent, it's practice. And what makes it hard is exactly what makes it NOT boring. It requires imagination.
andid 6 months ago in playlist Feinman - Fun To Imagine
@jimmyti9cer Similar story here, I figure mathematics without actually using any numbers. I like to see relationships and model them, evaluating them numerically is not yet of my interest because I think I'm heading towards abstract mathematics, like set theory, and sometimes I feel that it's like a car I'm driving.
pran1zzle 6 months ago
@jimmyti9cer
spelling,not so much.
1971mgb 5 months ago
@jimmyti9cer I agree, I like math, but my real passion is science, so I'm going to learn as much math as it takes, so I can do what I'm passion about beautiful SCIENCE!
thebest852 4 months ago
Comment removed
jimmyti9cer 1 year ago
What a brilliant, brilliant mind. For the last few months, he's fueled me with so much enthusiasm in what I do. My only regret is that ... I only found out about him recently. Never met you Richard, but I dearly miss you.
0AshleyDale0 1 year ago 96
@0AshleyDale0 wow.... that last sentence, I feel the same
okara83 7 months ago
Feynman a genius? Much more: a magician!
Jongloeb 1 year ago
I like the way Feynman says he knows nothing about psychology at the end of the video.
Given the internal investigation he has made of his own mental processes I think he is being somewhat humble.
He probably has a greater personal understanding of the functionality of the human mind than any psychologist alive!
The mind should be a playground for the soul not a torture chamber for the heart.
smudge6699 1 year ago
mind blown
DaWanderer 1 year ago
i am going to study harder than i ever have
jimmyshitbags 1 year ago
@jimmyshitbags
Make sure you're at play like Feynman NOT work.
:-)
smudge6699 1 year ago
@smudge6699 haha amen to that man.
jimmyshitbags 1 year ago
@jimmyshitbags
Keep well and be happy.
We all need you.
:-)
smudge6699 1 year ago
People say to me; "You're so lucky you can play the piano" and I say "It's not luck, it's playing the damn thing for hours every day for 20 years!". Feynman is right (as always), if someone devotes time, thought and focus to something then over time they become a expert and understand that pursuit to a fine subtlety.
I must have watched these videos ten times. Such joyous wisdom.
Kitsua 1 year ago 4
just inspired me a little bit :)
LFZ15 1 year ago
I also thought people think differently aswell, but I didn't really guess how. It's kind of interesting to know people count differently in their head, I count like Feynman does. How do you guys count in your head? That other guy who sees it visually is insane.
JordanWebster07 1 year ago
Outliers: “In study after study, of composers, basketball players, fiction writers, ice-skaters, concert pianists, chess players, master criminals, this number comes up again and again. Ten thousand hours is equivalent to roughly three hours a day, or 20 hours a week, of practice over 10 years… No one has yet found a case in which true world-class expertise was accomplished in less time. It seems that it takes the brain this long to assimilate all that it needs to know to achieve true mastery“
brittany051791 1 year ago
Feynman discovers the phonological loop :).
Sinoschism 1 year ago
wow! ive never been able to explain why i don't understand some people even though i am quite intelligent myself. I thought it was ADD?
jaymcd84 1 year ago
@jaymcd84
Feynman is a genius because his mind is free.
jaymcd84 1 year ago 4
The results may not always be mind blowing, but every now and then something comes along that makes all that "thinking for the sake of thinking" worthwhile.
I love Feynman, and I think he was a genius whether he knew/admitted it or not.
ElPeejerino 1 year ago
This part of the interview shows best the gains to be hand by paying a bunch of very smart people to just sit around and think about stuff. (Otherwise known as academia ...)
Minds of Faynman's caliber (be they trained, naturally gifted if such a thing exists, or otherwise) will mull over problems and scenarios in their heads and come up with interesting and very often useful theories to explain all kinds of phenomena.
ElPeejerino 1 year ago 2
listen closely gentlemen. There have been few people in the history of mankind like this man. Wittgenstein, Newton, Einstein...Feynman. Both the lucidity of his expression and the quality of his thought speak for his genius.
Williyf 1 year ago
Interesting how they do that. I suppose I count by just having numbers pop into my mind. Big white numbers on a black screen. I read it in my mind though.
Golly, I'm so confused.
IAmWaverly 1 year ago
these videos are really interesting
JWStreeter 1 year ago
My brain just exploded
Toxxic88 1 year ago 3
"If he had to read he couldn't look at his clock." Hilarious :-)
FelixA9 1 year ago
His imaginary clock not the real one my friend!
Fotai19 1 year ago
This is why I'm enrolled to do Physics next year.
GLeNss 1 year ago 11
Truly a man for all seasons. :)
perfectionbox 1 year ago 2
He is purely a genius. There are some geniuses I have a great deal of respect for; Einstein, Tesla, Newton,....., and Feynman.
Ko252 1 year ago 58
Throw in Neil deGrasse Tyson and you've got a great list.
wedgiey1 1 year ago
famous geniuses, are not the only geniuses
dmannn12345 1 year ago
Feynman isn't famous?
derekjwilliams 1 year ago 3
Not as much as others, which is a shame. He's is a great scientist. Feynman is also a former Manhattan Project scientist! He helped create the first atomic bomb.
TheZorch 1 year ago
@dmannn12345 true that true that
tonybeir 1 year ago
Tesla was far from famous, and most people has yet to hear about him. And with ...... i meant many more.
Ko252 1 year ago
@Ko252 Leonardo, Galileo ,Antoine Lavoisier, Faraday, Maxwell hertz,Max plank, and Eddington all who where pieces of the jigsaw puzzle of Einsteins BIG IDEA.
baaroodii 1 year ago
@baaroodii and will be the pieces of some other great mind's puzzle in the future.
Ko252 1 year ago
@Ko252 carl sagan, stephen hawkings...
nachoseg 1 year ago
@Ko252 Tesla? Meh. He came up with quite a few things which (I believe) were proven false. Correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe say what exactly he discovered? I've never really looked into his work.
FinnishFuturist 1 year ago
@FinnishFuturist AC electricity for one
savytaytay 1 year ago
@FinnishFuturist he invented the AC motor, fluorescent lamp, he created the first rudimentary digital circuit at the end of XIV century, he created the first remote control circuit, controlling remotely a small boat, he invented the radio (Marconi ripped him and Tesla won, after his death, the title as the radio inventor), he invented the first concept of a death ray as a ray of condensed energy, he imagined the concept of long distance telecommunication, electricity without wires and many more
HairyPotter2006 1 year ago 2
@HairyPotter2006 No, he never invented the fluorescent lamp. Becquerel first examined fluorescence 30, 40 years before him. Edison probably had the earliest patent on a fluorescent lamp design. But the first practical fluorescent lamps were invented years after this. If Tesla was tinkering with these lamps at the time he was not alone at any time so aye.
Yea, he was first to patent the 3 phase AC motor but the work on this motor predates Tesla by so many years.
ignatei 1 month ago
i have known that :P
GrowlingVocals 1 year ago
A common paraphrase of a quote from Randall Jarrell :
"...we understand each other worse and it matters less than any of us suppose."
KnowKnot 2 years ago 3
feynman is a sexy beast.
phattown213 2 years ago 12
only for guys
LdyChatterleysPlover 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's tragic we don't have people like Feynman around anymore. The job of making physics interesting for the general population is left in the hands of retarded dumbfucks like Michio Kaku, who does nothing but getting cocaine-high on the publicity of lies, ridiculous exaggerations and incoherent, self-contradicting technological fantasies, to the point of delusions of grandeur. If only someone in the field would speak out about this, the coming generation takes him seriously because of his Ph.D.
enHanzable 2 years ago
Why does everyone believe that one must be incredibly stupid to believe in God?
elarbol04 2 years ago
because you have to be...
AFC927 2 years ago 3
Its actually a somewhat oscillating function
vtiger444 2 years ago
depends on your definition of god ..
einstein was a deist ...so his god had nothing in common with religion ...
the pope's god however is very different ..and u would really have to be somewhat stupid to truly believe in this ..
sidewaysfcs0718 2 years ago
According to what i read from him it seems more as a pantheist, but at the end it doesnt really matter he wasnt what he believed in.
metalmusi 1 year ago
No, he was an atheist.
TheBowerbird 1 year ago
pantheists are in a way atheists.
metalmusi 1 year ago
How do you guys count in your head? I count like Feynman, I say the numbers in my head. How about you guys-- i'm interested...
itsfakebytheway 2 years ago
I bet you don't always do that. Look at a die. You don't need to count the spots, you see the pattern.
Up to about 4 or 5 we can see the number without counting even if there's no pattern.
bdf2718 2 years ago
@bdf2718 Interesting re this... do a search on "subitizing."
KnowKnot 2 years ago
I don't think I could have read or talked while counting. When I count or read I have to say the words inside my head.
chrisofnottingham 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this guy thinks he's so smart, or someone has told him he is, but to me, its just common sense, yet he acts like its a great experiment and major discoveries that peoples brains fall into familiar patterns.
Zapppo 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i don,t agree with him that anyone can learn anything. most people could never understand most things in science. it takes a special mind or we,d all be scientists and no one would believe in gods.
userwl2850 2 years ago
@userwl2850
/signed
SeltsamerAttraktor 2 years ago
Genius is defined by devoting a great deal of time (10,000 hours lets say) to some specific task. Real life examples include Einstein (he'd lock himself into his room for hours and hours studying problems. If you can do this for years and not give up like he did you will become just as proficient). Bill Gates sat at one of the earlier computers and programmed all day long for years. He didn't surf the web (there wasn't one then), he learned and studied for hours everyday focusing on one thing.
ChukCharcoales 2 years ago
@ChukCharcoales o.k. lets say 4 years. still don,t agree. study as much as you can, on one subject, why aren,t einsteins everywhere? did you know his brain wasn,t normal? he could not even speak before the age of 4. why are there people who still think a god made everything we can see today? no. special people are born to teach and mr and mrs average stand in awe and wish we could understand the same. it,s not about studying the problem, it,s about solving it.
userwl2850 2 years ago
Genius is something else, there's a lot of argument about it. What you're thinking of is "mastery," a point at which the brain has restructured itself to its work. And even masters aren't everywhere because the estimated time to achieve JUST mastery is 10 years of "effortful study," always pushing the limit of ability. Very few people are willing to make that kind of sacrifice, most don't have (or don't believe they have) the time. See "The Expert Mind" at Scientific American re this.
KnowKnot 2 years ago
can you send me the article?
koshy2000 1 year ago
There aren't more Einsteins everywhere because finding someone who can study for hours on a particular subject everyday is extraordinarily rare. However, when you do find someone who can devote a vast amount of time to a subject, you will see be amazed at their proficiency. (look at pro athletes, musicians, actors, gamers, scientists, etc.) Genetics does play some role, but a gift does not correlate to achievement as much as hard work does.
ChukCharcoales 1 year ago
Bill stole shit.
Everything he did copied other people. Sometimes he bought it in (DOS) and other times he stole it (Stacker).
Bill was never a technical genius, but he was a genius crook.
bdf2718 2 years ago
Half right. Although Bill did use some underhanded tactics to boost his own company, that does not negate that he was very, very good at programming.
ChukCharcoales 1 year ago
@ChukCharcoales
Nope. Bill was a shit programmer. He learned to code by looking in garbage cans for stuff others threw away.
He ripped-off Basic from an implementation on one of his college's computers.
He bought DOS (for a song).
Windows took a lot of code from IBM's PS/2 (and he then shafted IBM by releasing Windows early and getting all the applications before PS/2.
Bill is good at stealing and ripping off.
bdf2718 1 year ago
@bdf2718 If he was able to buy DOS for a song, that, if anything, shows how much of a slick businessman he was. People can learn to play by looking at other's music and emulating it; mimicking and copying experts is a very effective way to learn material. Gates grabbing code from garbage cans so he could learn it shows, if anything, a strong motivation to learn.
Ripping off of colleges is not commendable if you care about ethics, which i don't think bill gates really cared about.
ChukCharcoales 1 year ago
@ChukCharcoales
He bought DOS for a song. Gary Kildall created CP/M as a crappy, cut-down clone of Unix shells of the time. Seattle Computer Products cloned CP/M (with all its limitations) as 86-DOS (also known as QDOS for quick and dirty OS).
Bill heard IBM wanted an OS and had rejected CP/M because Kildall was boning an IBM exec's wife, so nipped down the street and bought QDOS for a song.
bdf2718 1 year ago
@bdf2718 There was so much money at stake, I would have probably done the same thing. We can see the results of his perhaps-not-so-ethical opportunistic business practices, billions of dollars in personal wealth. Says something about society, doesn't it. Sucks that I'm not in a similar situation as Bill. Oh well, we can't have the decision to make billions of dollars in exchange for a few shrewd business decisions.
ChukCharcoales 1 year ago
@ChukCharcoales
You can see it as about greed (and I might have succumbed too). I see it as Gates setting back computing by about 20 years. Atari, Amiga and Acorn had better than Windows before Windows came out. Bill drove them out of business and we all suffered as a consequence.
bdf2718 1 year ago
@bdf2718 Are you serious when you say this one man has this much effect on the technological industry? If so, that's horrible.
UncomfortableSilence 1 year ago
@UncomfortableSilence
Bill Gates set back computer/human interaction by about 10 years. It took Windows 10 years to get even close to the user interfaces that were around when Windows were released.
As far as security and reliability are concerned, Windows is about 20 years behind.
bdf2718 1 year ago
@bdf2718 Woah. As a man who appreciates progress, I find that just appalling.
UncomfortableSilence 1 year ago
@UncomfortableSilence
Back when Windows 95 came out, I was using an Acorn Archimedes. Made by a small company in the UK who wrote their own OS and designed their own 32-bit processor (now called the ARM and is the most common processor on the planet). The GUI back then beats what Windows has now. It didn't look vastly different, but it was way more consistent and had far more shortcuts for commonly-used tasks (just one was right-click in a scroll area to scroll in reverse).
Bill sucks.
bdf2718 1 year ago
Enough hard work...maybe.
I want to know some different methods of studying.
I've tried just running through textbook questions for intermediate calc. and it got me nowhere (3 times).
There has to be a way, but I haven't found it yet.
Kreadus005 2 years ago
Be calm
AClarke2007 2 years ago
@Kreadus005 Look up SQ3R (Survery, Question, Read, Recite, Review)
ChukCharcoales 1 year ago
feynman ftw
t3r4b173 2 years ago
AH HA, interesting.
calvinjhfeng 2 years ago
Every person who studies hard and devotes his/her time to science CAN become a scientist. Finally Feynman got it! There are no geniuses, no miracle people, there are just interested and uninterested people. The uninterested ones become uninteresting...
ArianeQube 2 years ago 95
"the uninterested ones become uninteresting".
best quote ever.
nice.
ihurtedmypeepee 2 years ago 12
@ArianeQube
People have different interests. I lean more towards the arts, but I still want to understand physics and who better to learn from.
sweetdreamerzz 1 year ago
@ArianeQube I remember a quote from a pianist or musician and he said, "You dare call me a genius when I practice 14 hours everyday for 30 years!"
jonjon1333 1 year ago 4
@ArianeQube Well, I don't agree. If our physical form, our bodies, can be so different from each other, our brains can as well. There's no way everybody in the world could be running fast enough to be Olympics material. It takes some basic features of your body to be correct. Ofcourse you wouldn't become fast if you didn't train, but some just have it, others don't. The same goes for the brain. Not everybody can be good at everything. But you can become BETTER by studying. Better than you were.
HKragh 1 year ago
@ArianeQube But the master of a given field had it both. The interest, AND the brain suited for that particular field. Without interest, sure you won't become good at anything. But without the right hardwirering, you won't become great, even if you trained/studied every living hour of your life. You may be able to recite facts of the field, but thinking up new stuff? No way...
HKragh 1 year ago
@ArianeQube He's mistaken to the highest degree actually. Einstein had an irregular brain. Depth and speed were increased; thus, imagination expanded.
All of us scientists who are "interested" stay "interested" (good word by the way) because we CAN. We cannot stop processing our "interest" as we interested!
Those that CAN NOT, CAN PHYSICALLY NOT, lose interest.
The only reason a person can't hold interest, is being incapable of it.
THEY WOULD IF THEY COULD is the point.
D33veeoss 1 year ago
@D33veeoss Irregular brain? Tell me what a regular brain looks like. Depth and speed were not increaed, but he had ie. larger corpus callosum (like females), increasing the connectivity between brain hemispheres. That being said, where does imagination reside? Curiosity is not confined to the scientific mind alone. Of course you can lose interest. Ever heard about depression? You make to many false claims.
Ko252 1 year ago
A YouTube video/Harvard textbook/Dr. Eyewitness etc etc summary:
-He had an abnormal amount of glial cells. Critical.
-He had an abnormal abundance of these cells in his left inferior parietal lobe (mathematical and visual-spacial reasoning)
-Furthermore, his parietal lobes on both sides were 15% wider than the normal the left one being particularly huge and misshapen.
"I don't think we can become an Albert Einstein by working at it. I think it's a matter of how we're made at birth."-T. Harvey
D33veeoss 1 year ago
@D33veeoss It amazes me how much you have to write, to state your points. I most probably will not write as eloquently as you, but that fit perfectly with Feynman's spirit. 1. There are lots of reasons for abundantment of glial cells. It could be, as you state genetical, but a glial response is often a result of usage or brain injury (as in Parkinson, Huntington's etc.). As for larger brain, well, usage changes shape. Look for instance up, "taxi driver brain". Further on, Harvey is wrong.
Ko252 1 year ago
Also important to note,
when an 8 year child builds a 600ma electro-magnetic generator our of mechano, stereo magnets and spooled 40? gauge copper wire, and this 8 year old walks around the science fair talking with other scientists...
the kid might notice a distinct difference.
Later in life, this child might easily understand that it's 'rare a mind' that cares, or is curious, or even has the capacity to wonder about the same wonders much less find the inroads to solve them.
D33veeoss 1 year ago
@D33veeoss Why? Because our brain is constant development, especially up to about the age of 30 year. The first two year of our life is incredible important to our intellectual abilities later in life, etc. Apropos the child, what child isnt curious? And do you really think that upbringing has nothing to say about our interest later in life?
Ko252 1 year ago
I think that the child would be well bona fied when he's heard him/herself quoted by the likes of Socrates and Einstein and the like. I think the child would be well bona fied when few on the international circuit spark his interest, however, when exposed to quotes of the great minds of the past, even without knowing, claims that the idea is verbatim to his/her own ideology.
-
D33veeoss 1 year ago
D33veeoss 1 year ago
@D33veeoss What capacity? What defines and constrains it? How can you be anything? Perhaps you are all, but a biological symbiosis, with the illusion of free will? If you have any understanding of neuroanatomy/-physiology, you would know that it is not ridiculous to be skeptical about the conjunction of anomalies and mental abilities. Existence of savants points to our mental abilities, but as do savant/geniuses like William James Sidis and the Polgar-sisters on the behalf of upbringing.
Ko252 1 year ago
If these weren't areas wherein I haven't driven my focus towards prior, I'd be happy to absorb your ideation.
However, since I have, this is invasive patronization.
I can't count the amounts of scarecrows and red herring evasions in your replies and I don't care to.
D33veeoss 1 year ago
@D33veeoss "If these weren't areas wherein I haven't driven my focus towards prior, I'd be happy to absorb your ideation." No, you would not. How I know? " I can learn, but not from your likes." Enought said about this.
"Invasive patronization". Well, then why dont you read the literature thoroughly next time you try to argue? I guess you can't count your own scrarecriws and red herring evasions either. I mentioned The Polgar-sisters, because their father wrote the book "Bring Up Genius! ".
Ko252 1 year ago
The second you speak of Susan and her sister and their father and the 6" thick '5334 puzzles' book I have on a ledge 9' from my head; well, that's the height of your audacity and we're certainly done with this rhetoric that you have confused with "discussion" or "conversation between 2 intellects."
D33veeoss 1 year ago
The implication of "you use a lot of words because your intellect won't allow you more efficient pathways of communications," means that you opened with ad hominem. I'm not certain that precedent has ever been turned around in a conversation yet. When that garbage comes first, logic must come second.
A metaphysical teeter-totter. I'm climbing off now.
D33veeoss 1 year ago
@D33veeoss I have never seen this as a discussion or conversation, but rectification. And what makes you think either of us are intellects? Because we quote the work of others? Ad hominem? Nope, I was justing the obvious, and I am still amazed how you feel the need to write. Apropos garbage; the fitting saying is: "Pearls before swine". You are sure damn secure about your unstanding, but that does not mean it is right. The sad part is, that you are writing this under the of Fayman. If you dont
Ko252 1 year ago
PS- how many tournaments have you followed her through? What's your interest in her style? Do you even know which opening she's known for? Her most famous game?
Don't bother it's not necessary. I don't care what you know about her. I'm damn secure about my understanding and my witness. It's bona fied.
Don't get me wrong, I can learn, but not from your likes.
D33veeoss 1 year ago
@D33veeoss understand the implication of that, then I feel sorry for you. Unlike you, I dont have problems learning from anyone. Regardless of your lack of valid arguments and exhaustive wordsmithery, I have learned alot from you. Even though you extensively try to polish up your exterior, your narcissitic core shines through. You hate to be corrected, even if you are wrong, and you have difficulties learning. It's bona fide.
Ko252 1 year ago
As for depression? That might steer one's curiosity and and testing into other areas.
Namely existential sciences and ontology and origins and cosmology and biology.
But that's only changing the shape and direction of one's topic of study.
But there will always be a topic of study if you're born with the capacity to absolve the curiosities successfully.
No amount of risperidone, lithium, welbutrin, trazidone etc etc etc etc etc will ever stop the curious brain from making inroads.
D33veeoss 1 year ago
But I'll agree that you might change from steam engine efficiencies into "what is a 'me'" type of questions. Where did so called 'me' begin? (clearly sperm and egg is a matter of semantics) What's information.
Depression might mold the direction of study, but never would depression truncate study in it's entirety.
If it did for you, then you need to see if you were appeasing your curiosity or just reading the text of great minds thinking that would suffice you as a critical thinker.
D33veeoss 1 year ago