24 ms·

> but I think things like are pretty much always learned skills. What if it isnt? What if there is a zoo out there, with loads of different people with differ

> but I think things like are pretty much always learned skills. What if it isnt? What if there is a zoo out there, with loads of different people with different skills just because the brain-maturation took a entirely different turn when they were a baby/child or the genetics did play out strange? Why is such a world of mental diversity so threatening to even just imagine? I find the thought of a alien mind just waiting for a coffe right next-to-me exhilarting and fascinating. Not to look at the sky, just to listen and find out that not everyone is a carbon copy of me (as my lazy flat copy mirror-neurons default implies) is a great adventure.

mistermann 3y ago
It may not be so much threatening as much as knowledge is also a lot like this innate capability: > Language itself is another example of this. The above paragraph is 94 words, yet you could probably recite it pretty much verbatim in terms of what was said, even if using different words. Think about how absurdly remarkable that is. You just "memorized" 94 words without even trying.
somenameforme 3y ago
I don't find it threatening, just contradicted by life experience. My background includes chess at a reasonably high level, and it's always always the same: just an absolutely obscene amount of work that gradually yields emergent skills, that includes things that many people think are "natural" like visualization and memory. For instance the 'trick' of casually memorizing games you play isn't a feat of some super-human memory. It's, inadvertently, the exact same 'trick' that memory competitors use. When a reasonably strong player looks at a chess board, it begins to tell an often vivid story of what's happened and what will happen. And stories are really easy to remember for everybody. So memorizing your games isn't really like memorizing a series of arcane moves, but instead more like recounting a familiar tale. We can even cheat, because so long as you remember all the key points of a game, you can generally reconstruct the filler in between - again, just like telling a story. It's why it can be much harder to remember games against weaker players than your peers - their moves, and thus stories, often don't make as much sense, and so it gets pretty fuzzy pretty quickly. This is also why you might often notice things like strong players able to relatively easily replay 80 distinct moves of an arbitrary game, but have difficulty remembering the exact date the game was played. 'Talent'/genetics obviously plays a role, but mostly only in determining what your peak potential is. But the fact that the overwhelming majority of people (including e.g. grandmasters) will never get anywhere remotely near to their genetic potential in anything makes it largely inconsequential in practice. In any case, we certainly aren't carbon copies. These 'tricks' I'm mentioning here only really emerge after many years of concerted and dedicated study of something. The overwhelming majority of people will never do anything like this, so whether ones brain is an 'alien mind' or not becomes largely a matter of semantics.
- growingkittens 3y ago
  It is only contradicted by your perception of the life experience of others, which is guided by what you are already familiar with. You are also not psychic, but you draw conclusions about the minds of others that you cannot know. The human mind is ambiguous, and you have created a comforting narrative to explain it. This is a very human response to the threat of ambiguity.
  - drdeca 3y ago
    Are you not also making assumptions about other minds by saying this?
    - growingkittens 3y ago
      >by saying this? It is not clear which part 'this' refers to. We as humans know very little about our brains. The original commenter assumes there is little variation in the human mind based on a narrow observation about memory feats in chess, then generalized that idea to the entirety of humanity.
      - drdeca 3y ago
        I was mostly referring to the "you have created a comforting narrative to explain it" (but also, a little bit, as a joke, kind of referring to the "you are also not psychic" part, but only as a joke)
        growingkittens 3y ago
        Ah, okay. I meant to use 'comforting' as a descriptor of the narrative they wrote.
- 7thaccount 3y ago
  Although you're correct that this occurs (and is likely the case of those with these abilities greater than 9/10 if I had to guess without any data), there are definitely savants out there like Kim Peek unusual brains that allow them to do all kinds of things. I think that's all the other commenter was talking about.

mistermann 3y ago

It may not be so much threatening as much as knowledge is also a lot like this innate capability: > Language itself is another example of this. The above paragraph is 94 words, yet you could probably recite it pretty much verbatim in terms of what was said, even if using different words. Think about how absurdly remarkable that is. You just "memorized" 94 words without even trying.

somenameforme 3y ago

I don't find it threatening, just contradicted by life experience. My background includes chess at a reasonably high level, and it's always always the same: just an absolutely obscene amount of work that gradually yields emergent skills, that includes things that many people think are "natural" like visualization and memory. For instance the 'trick' of casually memorizing games you play isn't a feat of some super-human memory. It's, inadvertently, the exact same 'trick' that memory competitors use. When a reasonably strong player looks at a chess board, it begins to tell an often vivid story of what's happened and what will happen. And stories are really easy to remember for everybody. So memorizing your games isn't really like memorizing a series of arcane moves, but instead more like recounting a familiar tale. We can even cheat, because so long as you remember all the key points of a game, you can generally reconstruct the filler in between - again, just like telling a story. It's why it can be much harder to remember games against weaker players than your peers - their moves, and thus stories, often don't make as much sense, and so it gets pretty fuzzy pretty quickly. This is also why you might often notice things like strong players able to relatively easily replay 80 distinct moves of an arbitrary game, but have difficulty remembering the exact date the game was played. 'Talent'/genetics obviously plays a role, but mostly only in determining what your peak potential is. But the fact that the overwhelming majority of people (including e.g. grandmasters) will never get anywhere remotely near to their genetic potential in anything makes it largely inconsequential in practice. In any case, we certainly aren't carbon copies. These 'tricks' I'm mentioning here only really emerge after many years of concerted and dedicated study of something. The overwhelming majority of people will never do anything like this, so whether ones brain is an 'alien mind' or not becomes largely a matter of semantics.

growingkittens 3y ago
It is only contradicted by your perception of the life experience of others, which is guided by what you are already familiar with. You are also not psychic, but you draw conclusions about the minds of others that you cannot know. The human mind is ambiguous, and you have created a comforting narrative to explain it. This is a very human response to the threat of ambiguity.
- drdeca 3y ago
  Are you not also making assumptions about other minds by saying this?
  - growingkittens 3y ago
    >by saying this? It is not clear which part 'this' refers to. We as humans know very little about our brains. The original commenter assumes there is little variation in the human mind based on a narrow observation about memory feats in chess, then generalized that idea to the entirety of humanity.
    - drdeca 3y ago
      I was mostly referring to the "you have created a comforting narrative to explain it" (but also, a little bit, as a joke, kind of referring to the "you are also not psychic" part, but only as a joke)
      - growingkittens 3y ago
        Ah, okay. I meant to use 'comforting' as a descriptor of the narrative they wrote.
7thaccount 3y ago
Although you're correct that this occurs (and is likely the case of those with these abilities greater than 9/10 if I had to guess without any data), there are definitely savants out there like Kim Peek unusual brains that allow them to do all kinds of things. I think that's all the other commenter was talking about.