Todor Arnaudov:
Cognitive Resources and Schopenhauer
Regarding creative genii and ability to focus, I suspect that not only focus on imaginative concepts is important, but it is also the amount of cognitive resources (maybe you imply it). I think this is needed in order to render the concepts and I suspect that "ordinary" people cannot focus well on too general concepts or don't care that much of., partially because they cannot render them well.
I suspect the focus and the growth of hierarchy could be mutually dependent - if higher associative areas fail to find meaningful generalizations or hardly do, they would hardly develop further or be busy with meaningful activations.
BTW, have you read Schopenhauer's discussion on genius and focus, in his "The World as Will and Representation"? He mentions that genii possess too much of intellectual energy allowing them to escape from the subjectivity.
(Translation - mine, from Bulgarian, some attributes missed)
"...practical person applies his intelligence according to its purpose predetermined by nature - to comprehend the relations between things, partially one to another and partially compared to the will of the individual who cognizes. On the other hand the genius uses his intelligence against its purpose - to understand the objective nature of things. Because of the advanced cognitive capability the genius cognizes to a higher extent the generality in things, rather than the individual, while serving to Will mostly requires cognition of the individual ("specifics")." --- Specialists vs Generalists
"(...) All of the great theoretical discoveries of any kind are achieved because their author directed all of his spiritual power towards one single point, where he links and concentrate the power to extent where this point occupies his entire reality and the rest of the world disappears for him." -- Detachment and Focus
Etc., a lot could be cited.
I suspect the focus and the growth of hierarchy could be mutually dependent - if higher associative areas fail to find meaningful generalizations or hardly do, they would hardly develop further or be busy with meaningful activations.
BTW, have you read Schopenhauer's discussion on genius and focus, in his "The World as Will and Representation"? He mentions that genii possess too much of intellectual energy allowing them to escape from the subjectivity.
(Translation - mine, from Bulgarian, some attributes missed)
"...practical person applies his intelligence according to its purpose predetermined by nature - to comprehend the relations between things, partially one to another and partially compared to the will of the individual who cognizes. On the other hand the genius uses his intelligence against its purpose - to understand the objective nature of things. Because of the advanced cognitive capability the genius cognizes to a higher extent the generality in things, rather than the individual, while serving to Will mostly requires cognition of the individual ("specifics")." --- Specialists vs Generalists
"(...) All of the great theoretical discoveries of any kind are achieved because their author directed all of his spiritual power towards one single point, where he links and concentrate the power to extent where this point occupies his entire reality and the rest of the world disappears for him." -- Detachment and Focus
Etc., a lot could be cited.
Last edited Oct 1, 2010 9:22 AM
DeleteBlock this userReport abusive comment
0
Raw resources obviously matter, but it’s not an interesting part, - anyone can understand brute force. And variation there (my guess it’s within ~x10) is very minor, compared to variation in the outcomes. Face it, we waste >99% of our cognitive resources on trivial nonsense anyway.
Ordinary people don’t care as much because most intellectual endeavors are a winner-take-all game. If you don’t feel a competitive advantage (however slight), you get discouraged & go elsewhere.
Schopenhauer’s dichotomy is just an attempt to dramatize “boring” continuous spectrum in the scope of generalization. Typical of philosophers, they like “existential struggle” because it attracts attention of the highbrow clueless, - their target audience. Yes, he stresses focus, but I don't know if the discussion is very constructive, let me know if you find something.
Of course, the equation looks different in art, - it’s intrinsically superficial, so high-level focus doesn’t matter as much there :).
Ordinary people don’t care as much because most intellectual endeavors are a winner-take-all game. If you don’t feel a competitive advantage (however slight), you get discouraged & go elsewhere.
Schopenhauer’s dichotomy is just an attempt to dramatize “boring” continuous spectrum in the scope of generalization. Typical of philosophers, they like “existential struggle” because it attracts attention of the highbrow clueless, - their target audience. Yes, he stresses focus, but I don't know if the discussion is very constructive, let me know if you find something.
Of course, the equation looks different in art, - it’s intrinsically superficial, so high-level focus doesn’t matter as much there :).
EditDeleteReport abusive comment
Sure, we waste a lot of time and resources, but raw power advantage can compensate it, my guess for the variation, whatever the way it's measured, is: bigger.
Also the direction of mind and the focus to advanced stuff is also initiated (or at least supported) because of the brute force advantage at young age. If you lack the advantage then, you might get stuck to "ordinary activities" etc. Otherwise you develop faster and your"skeleton" cognitive hierarchy reaches higher so you can focus there as well.
>Yes, he stresses focus, but I don't know if the discussion is very constructive, let me know if you find something.
OK
I believe cognitive operations and progress are done step by step, there is a limitation of the complexity and the scope of data a mind can process at any given point of development,
and I think it doesn't matter what the data represent and how general or specific data are. Here the raw power is important - lacking minimum working memory for a problem will stall a mind (or would not allow it to reach there at all). It's true that good modular design can minimize the requirement for minimum working memory for a cognitive step.
Regarding art and how superficial it is. Writing/imaging a novel or a feature film with all the details that must be plausible seem to me more complex than doing many of the scientific discoveries;
a lot of the scientists are "boring".
Yes, a lot of mainstream art has simple underlying structure and repeats a lot. Scientific scope of data which leads to inventions might be ridiculously small also ("boring"), it's like most of your mind is idling.
I know, this is because of methodology, appropriate hierarchical selective focus etc., but in a way I think it requires less horse power than imaging and holding in mind a whole novel with all events, causality and relationships inside; also nowadays computers do a lot of scientists' job - you can prove an empirical hypothesis and "generalize"" using a tool for Bayesian inference or by checking a trend in the statistics.
On the other hand writing a written or visual story is AI-complete and experimental, symbolic and innovative art can be like engineering and research, you search for, discover, devise new concepts, new tools, and search for abstract messages.
Also the direction of mind and the focus to advanced stuff is also initiated (or at least supported) because of the brute force advantage at young age. If you lack the advantage then, you might get stuck to "ordinary activities" etc. Otherwise you develop faster and your"skeleton" cognitive hierarchy reaches higher so you can focus there as well.
>Yes, he stresses focus, but I don't know if the discussion is very constructive, let me know if you find something.
OK
I believe cognitive operations and progress are done step by step, there is a limitation of the complexity and the scope of data a mind can process at any given point of development,
and I think it doesn't matter what the data represent and how general or specific data are. Here the raw power is important - lacking minimum working memory for a problem will stall a mind (or would not allow it to reach there at all). It's true that good modular design can minimize the requirement for minimum working memory for a cognitive step.
Regarding art and how superficial it is. Writing/imaging a novel or a feature film with all the details that must be plausible seem to me more complex than doing many of the scientific discoveries;
a lot of the scientists are "boring".
Yes, a lot of mainstream art has simple underlying structure and repeats a lot. Scientific scope of data which leads to inventions might be ridiculously small also ("boring"), it's like most of your mind is idling.
I know, this is because of methodology, appropriate hierarchical selective focus etc., but in a way I think it requires less horse power than imaging and holding in mind a whole novel with all events, causality and relationships inside; also nowadays computers do a lot of scientists' job - you can prove an empirical hypothesis and "generalize"" using a tool for Bayesian inference or by checking a trend in the statistics.
On the other hand writing a written or visual story is AI-complete and experimental, symbolic and innovative art can be like engineering and research, you search for, discover, devise new concepts, new tools, and search for abstract messages.
DeleteBlock this userReport abusive comment
You have to distinguish between the advantage of raw power per se, & of the motivation / confidence it gives you. Confidence really depends on prior results, determined by raw_intelligence * duration_of_focused_
Regarding art, it’s superficial in the way you chose to focus on it (that’s a macro- attention span). I don’t care how deep the structures you work with are, understanding them is just a means to an end. And the end is to flex & show off your intelligence, not to advance knowledge. The latter requires specialization, even if you specialize on generalization process. Of course, you abhore specialization (in subject matter, not in presentation skills), - it will shrink your audience down to nothing. Artists & philosophers are cripto- attention whores, their top priority is recognition. That’s true for most people, but some do constructive work to gain it.
Regarding art, it’s superficial in the way you chose to focus on it (that’s a macro- attention span). I don’t care how deep the structures you work with are, understanding them is just a means to an end. And the end is to flex & show off your intelligence, not to advance knowledge. The latter requires specialization, even if you specialize on generalization process. Of course, you abhore specialization (in subject matter, not in presentation skills), - it will shrink your audience down to nothing. Artists & philosophers are cripto- attention whores, their top priority is recognition. That’s true for most people, but some do constructive work to gain it.
EditDeleteReport abusive comment
>Attention span is an independent factor here, far more modifiable (thus variable) than innate quality of wetware. Anyway, if you have any suggestions on how to increase raw power, I am all ears.
OK, that's a good point... Mine is that raw power is there also.
>in the way you chose to focus on it (that’s a macro- attention span)
Well, I don't think artists become artists to get famous or so, at the age of a few years, they can do it and they enjoy it.
>And the end is to flex & show off your intelligence, not to advance knowledge.
OK
>The latter requires specialization, even if you specialize on generalization process. Of course,
>you abhore specialization (in subject matter, not in presentation skills), - it will shrink your
>audience down to nothing. Artists & philosophers are cripto- attention whores, their top priority is
>recognition. That’s true for most people, but some do constructive work to gain it.
Sorry, overgeneralized. I think my top-priority is to make my visions - reality and to do what I find valuable and I enjoy; movies is a synthesis of all arts, and seem closer than AGI, and after AGI is achieved movies and art in general might be pointless.
Regarding constructive work in art - I've done such since many years, and I know about my originality without being applauded, more over I know why some of my art is not recognized and can hardly be yet.
As Schopenhauer says, talented artists serve their Will and the mob, that's why they last only in their time, while ingenious artists are beyond, they do their art besides they are not understood, and of course they are smart enough to know that their finest art could hardly be understood and recognized by masses or even for some talented ones. Ironically, to get recognition you may have to do "dumber" art; it goes also about research, but as you know I still deny to do a "dumber" PhD to get formally recognized.
OK, that's a good point... Mine is that raw power is there also.
>in the way you chose to focus on it (that’s a macro- attention span)
Well, I don't think artists become artists to get famous or so, at the age of a few years, they can do it and they enjoy it.
>And the end is to flex & show off your intelligence, not to advance knowledge.
OK
>The latter requires specialization, even if you specialize on generalization process. Of course,
>you abhore specialization (in subject matter, not in presentation skills), - it will shrink your
>audience down to nothing. Artists & philosophers are cripto- attention whores, their top priority is
>recognition. That’s true for most people, but some do constructive work to gain it.
Sorry, overgeneralized. I think my top-priority is to make my visions - reality and to do what I find valuable and I enjoy; movies is a synthesis of all arts, and seem closer than AGI, and after AGI is achieved movies and art in general might be pointless.
Regarding constructive work in art - I've done such since many years, and I know about my originality without being applauded, more over I know why some of my art is not recognized and can hardly be yet.
As Schopenhauer says, talented artists serve their Will and the mob, that's why they last only in their time, while ingenious artists are beyond, they do their art besides they are not understood, and of course they are smart enough to know that their finest art could hardly be understood and recognized by masses or even for some talented ones. Ironically, to get recognition you may have to do "dumber" art; it goes also about research, but as you know I still deny to do a "dumber" PhD to get formally recognized.
DeleteBlock this userReport abusive comment
> I think my top-priority is to make my visions - reality and to do what I find valuable and I enjoy; movies is a synthesis of all arts, and seem closer than AGI, and after AGI is achieved movies and art in general might be pointless.
It’s pointless now, you do it because you lack integrity. You do movies because it feels “close” (primary) & procrastinate on AGI because it’s too “abstract”, even though you realize that the former is infinitesimally trivial compared to the latter. For recognition, self-affirmation, or aesthetic pleasure – art is petty & superficial because it makes no difference in the world. Short macro- attention span.
> And recently I try to do constructive work in visual effects.
Means to an end, which is not constructive. Constructive work would be theory. Will you ever run out of pathetic excuses?
It’s pointless now, you do it because you lack integrity. You do movies because it feels “close” (primary) & procrastinate on AGI because it’s too “abstract”, even though you realize that the former is infinitesimally trivial compared to the latter. For recognition, self-affirmation, or aesthetic pleasure – art is petty & superficial because it makes no difference in the world. Short macro- attention span.
> And recently I try to do constructive work in visual effects.
Means to an end, which is not constructive. Constructive work would be theory. Will you ever run out of pathetic excuses?
EditDeleteReport abusive comment
>It’s pointless now, you do it because you lack integrity.
Yes, and the other people usually are too "integral" (boring, single-minded, incapable, trivial, small cognitive resources, predictable, ...).
>Will you ever run out of pathetic excuses?
I'm very creative. :)
>Short macro- attention span.
I'm not sure about that, generalization sometimes is superficial. If I do enough of movies and art successfully, get enough of skills, recognition, self-affirmation, money, I may get bored of this, would have enough resources to do whatever I want, so I can still make movies being at a more general position, giving big ideas and approving, without dealing with all the details, and there are not many possibilities for intellectual activities to do next. Also from that point of social status and recognition I may find and motivate (and hire) other people to do it as well.
> art is petty & superficial because it makes no difference in the world.
People are emotional and need attractive and spectacular stimuli to get motivated and to believe. SF and fantasy motivates some people to become researchers and art may make people to relax, have fun etc., they need it.
>it’s too “abstract”
Unfortunately sometimes too abstract means boring, and you really underestimate the "security" of survival risk. What if I "loose life", loose contacts for several years and fail to earn 5 prizes per month or somebody is faster than you or whatever. I will turn to an insane homegrown wacko with no savings, no job, claiming he's been working on AI, while I could have found a back-up and be able to go back if I fail and even find collaboration.
It's easy to say how superficial I am, having the backing of your savings. First of all why did you go to the USA, you could generalize back in Moscow or why not in a village in Sibir or Kamchatka, far away from the boring world. Why did you get a higher education, why did you find a "dumb job" next (I know, to save for the prizes...) - you could find a warm state and sleep under bridges, what more do you need to survive? You could even generalize in prison, after being caught for vagrancy, so even freedom is not required. :)
Sorry for the sarcasm, but yours is funny as well.
Yes, and the other people usually are too "integral" (boring, single-minded, incapable, trivial, small cognitive resources, predictable, ...).
>Will you ever run out of pathetic excuses?
I'm very creative. :)
>Short macro- attention span.
I'm not sure about that, generalization sometimes is superficial. If I do enough of movies and art successfully, get enough of skills, recognition, self-affirmation, money, I may get bored of this, would have enough resources to do whatever I want, so I can still make movies being at a more general position, giving big ideas and approving, without dealing with all the details, and there are not many possibilities for intellectual activities to do next. Also from that point of social status and recognition I may find and motivate (and hire) other people to do it as well.
> art is petty & superficial because it makes no difference in the world.
People are emotional and need attractive and spectacular stimuli to get motivated and to believe. SF and fantasy motivates some people to become researchers and art may make people to relax, have fun etc., they need it.
>it’s too “abstract”
Unfortunately sometimes too abstract means boring, and you really underestimate the "security" of survival risk. What if I "loose life", loose contacts for several years and fail to earn 5 prizes per month or somebody is faster than you or whatever. I will turn to an insane homegrown wacko with no savings, no job, claiming he's been working on AI, while I could have found a back-up and be able to go back if I fail and even find collaboration.
It's easy to say how superficial I am, having the backing of your savings. First of all why did you go to the USA, you could generalize back in Moscow or why not in a village in Sibir or Kamchatka, far away from the boring world. Why did you get a higher education, why did you find a "dumb job" next (I know, to save for the prizes...) - you could find a warm state and sleep under bridges, what more do you need to survive? You could even generalize in prison, after being caught for vagrancy, so even freedom is not required. :)
Sorry for the sarcasm, but yours is funny as well.
DeleteBlock this userReport abusive comment
> People are emotional and need attractive and spectacular stimuli to get motivated and to believe. SF and fantasy motivates some people to become researchers and art may make people to relax, have fun etc., they need it.
Until they grow up.
> Unfortunately sometimes too abstract means boring,
It’s only boring if you’re not making any progress, which is bound to happen when you’re not working.
> and you really underestimate the "security" of survival risk. What if I "loose life", loose contacts for several years and fail to earn 5 prizes per month
You don’t need $500 / month to live. Anyway, I am raising your first prize to $500, - buffering does change the algorithm on the margins. Do you want to get the balance the same way?
> or somebody is faster than you or whatever. I will turn to an insane homegrown wacko with no savings, no job, claiming he's been working on AI, while I could have found a back-up and be able to go back if I fail and even find collaboration.
That’s the problem, you don’t have the guts. Your risk is pretty minor, compared to the one I took by walking across Turkish border back in 1985. That was like jumping off the cliff blindfolded, because a map says there is water below.
> It's easy to say how superficial I am, having the backing of your savings.
You’re not making movies for money, a dumb job would be a lot better at that. Must be fun being so creative at fooling yourself.
> First of all why did you go to the USA, you could generalize back in Moscow
Almaty was even better, that’s where I grew up. But in terms of working on your own AI ideas, the old SU was as good as 19th century, - no chance of ever implementing them. And there was no web, so I had an illusion that there was real action elsewhere.
> Why did you get a higher education,
Because CIA paid for it (no, I didn’t work for them, it was a favor).
> why did you find a "dumb job" next (I know, to save for the prizes...) - you could find a warm state and sleep under bridges, what more do you need to survive?
I did a lot of stupid things in my life, mostly because I did *not* have anyone to work with.
> You could even generalize in prison, after being caught for vagrancy
This is the USA, the bums are protected specie here.
Until they grow up.
> Unfortunately sometimes too abstract means boring,
It’s only boring if you’re not making any progress, which is bound to happen when you’re not working.
> and you really underestimate the "security" of survival risk. What if I "loose life", loose contacts for several years and fail to earn 5 prizes per month
You don’t need $500 / month to live. Anyway, I am raising your first prize to $500, - buffering does change the algorithm on the margins. Do you want to get the balance the same way?
> or somebody is faster than you or whatever. I will turn to an insane homegrown wacko with no savings, no job, claiming he's been working on AI, while I could have found a back-up and be able to go back if I fail and even find collaboration.
That’s the problem, you don’t have the guts. Your risk is pretty minor, compared to the one I took by walking across Turkish border back in 1985. That was like jumping off the cliff blindfolded, because a map says there is water below.
> It's easy to say how superficial I am, having the backing of your savings.
You’re not making movies for money, a dumb job would be a lot better at that. Must be fun being so creative at fooling yourself.
> First of all why did you go to the USA, you could generalize back in Moscow
Almaty was even better, that’s where I grew up. But in terms of working on your own AI ideas, the old SU was as good as 19th century, - no chance of ever implementing them. And there was no web, so I had an illusion that there was real action elsewhere.
> Why did you get a higher education,
Because CIA paid for it (no, I didn’t work for them, it was a favor).
> why did you find a "dumb job" next (I know, to save for the prizes...) - you could find a warm state and sleep under bridges, what more do you need to survive?
I did a lot of stupid things in my life, mostly because I did *not* have anyone to work with.
> You could even generalize in prison, after being caught for vagrancy
This is the USA, the bums are protected specie here.
No comments:
Post a Comment