The Unparalleled Genius of John von Neumann • Hacker News Board

Re: The Unparalleled Genius of John von Neumann

#271

Post by keiferski » Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 2:55 PM UTC

Yessing wrote: post #267

keiferski wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intelligence is a word, a messy abstract concept. If you treat it as an existent quality like height or weight, you end up with absurd questions that have no answers, like "Who was smarter, Picasso or Einstein?"

Einstein, without a doubt? and it's not because Einstein was a brilliant physicits. Intelligence refers to how well you can reason abstractly, not to how successful, how competent, how eloquent, or talented you are. for that we have those words. and Einstein would have still been more intelligent even if he never discorverd anything.

Intelligence has been defined in many ways: the capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking, and problem solving.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence

Re: The Unparalleled Genius of John von Neumann

#272

Post by b0rsuk » Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 3:07 PM UTC

_ugfj wrote: post #44

0-_-0 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4 on your list are Hungarian, and 3 of them went to the same high school: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasori_Gimn%C3%A1zium Hungary had a great education system at the time.

> Hungary had a great education system at the time. I seriously doubt you could back this. You are generalizing from a single school. Might as well argue that socialist Hungary had a great education system because of Fazekas. Neither are true. I happen to have a maths teacher degree from a Hungarian university and we studied Hungarian education history and I learned much more about education systems later on my own (…

Pre-WW2 Poland also had a great math achievements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lw%C3%B3w_School_of_Mathematic...

The city Lwów, or Lviv as Ukrainians now call it, had a great school and the city changed hands during war.

Also, Polish mathematicians from other universities played an important part in breaking the Enigma. They developed the Bombe, the cryptographic machine later sent to UK, which was then refined and used to break it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombe

More generally, I suspect it was something about the era and its culture that valued intellect and sciences. These days people like that are often put down as nerds. Leaders and extraverts are praised and set as examples. Celebrities are also a modern invention, I see them as something quite distinct from "stars". The only requirement to be a celebrity is to be popular.

Also, these days people would rather worship CEOs.

Re: The Unparalleled Genius of John von Neumann

#273

Post by dredmorbius » Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 4:21 PM UTC

arethuza wrote: post #20

roca wrote: post #9

Awww, I was hoping they'd mention how Neumann was keen on launching a preemptive nuclear strike against the USSR.

"“If you say why not bomb them tomorrow, I say why not today? If you say today at 5 o’clock, I say why not one o’clock?” Hardly surprising that he was one of the influences on the character of Dr Strangelove. Was he a remarkable genius, absolutely - was he right about everything, definitely not.

...one of the influences on the character of Dr Strangelove...

Herman Kahn being another.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Kahn

Paul Boyer's assessment of the pastiche here omits von Neumann, though the environment was target-rich:

While exposing the dangers and dilemmas of deterrence theory, Kubrick also satirized contemporary military figures and strategists, probably including Henry Kissinger, the author of Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy (1957); physicist Edward Teller, the “father” of the H-bomb; the ex-Nazi space scientist Wernher Von Braun; and the bombastic, cigar-chomping SAC commander Curtis LeMay, who in 1957 had told a government commission assessing U.S. nuclear policy that, if a Soviet attack ever seemed likely, he planned to “knock the shit out of them before they got off the ground.” Reminded that U.S. policy rejected preemptive war, LeMay had retorted, “No, it’s not national policy, but it’s my policy.” Much of the strategic thinking that Kubrick critiques, and even some of the dialogue in “Dr. Strangelove,” came from the work of Herman Kahn of the RAND Corp., an Air Force-funded California think tank. Kubrick read Kahn’s work carefully, especially his influential On Thermonuclear War (1960). General Turgidson’s upbeat assessment of the outcome of an all-out nuclear exchange directly paraphrases Kahn’s analysis.

https://www.armscontrol.org/print/1715

(Apparently he does mention von Neumann elsewhere.)

Re: The Unparalleled Genius of John von Neumann

#274

Post by codingslave » Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 4:28 PM UTC

Gatsky wrote: post #200

codingslave wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a hypothesis that almost all of the greatest intellectual achievements come from a very small number of bloodlines. I really doubt the idea that people are born and some just end up as the smartest in generations, I think theres more to the story

I am not sure that a ‘bloodline’ is a valid genetic concept. It depends a lot who the partner is, after all they provide 50% of the offspring’s genetic material. Put another way, if you are a genius in some field, the chance of having a child with someone of equal or greater aptitude is effectively zero. The ‘more to the story’ is possibly just affluence and family stability, which are also culturally embedded.

But what I am saying is this, the highest levels of genius, I would argue, are categorically different than just highly intelligent people. I think theres something different about the way their brains are structured. I've interacted with some of the top minds in a few fields, and I never come off with the feeling that they are merely farther along some kind of "intelligence spectrum". It always feels as if their thinking is different, i.e. its source and methods are a different type of brain. I think theres a few mutations floating around in a few different pools of the population

Re: The Unparalleled Genius of John von Neumann

#275

Post by sgillen » Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 4:30 PM UTC

neop1x wrote: post #262

I have a feeling that modern society doesn't motivate scientistis and mathematicians enough. It's easier and better-paid to do some marketing, big data or game industry job. Tech startups are raising millions to develop remotely controlled lightbulbs or multiplier AR chess games and schools are lowering requirements for students to pass as politicians want to show the increasing number of graduates.

I think a big part of that is there are too many people inherently interested in doing science. In fact there are already a lot more grads coming out with science degrees than there are jobs, and math is even worse. Although these positions have less pay, the competition is probably more fierce than for the positions you mentioned (although I think game-dev has a similar issue).

This is a problem but it's a good one to have, we have a lot of people out their willing to make science their life's work even without these external motivators.

Re: The Unparalleled Genius of John von Neumann

#276

Post by codingslave » Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 4:30 PM UTC

speedplane wrote: post #190

codingslave wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a hypothesis that almost all of the greatest intellectual achievements come from a very small number of bloodlines. I really doubt the idea that people are born and some just end up as the smartest in generations, I think theres more to the story

> I have a hypothesis that almost all of the greatest intellectual achievements come from a very small number of bloodlines. Nice hypothesis, but not exactly backed up by history. So many different societies have made so many diverse contributions to innovation, I'd be pretty amazed if you could draw a cohesive line through all (or most) of them. Also, separately, it's pretty difficult to separate "bloodlines", which…

Actually this isnt really true. If you go back over the last 200 hundred years, intellectual contributions are extremely concentrated. My point was further along these lines:

But what I am saying is this, the highest levels of genius, I would argue, are categorically different than just highly intelligent people. I think theres something different about the way their brains are structured. I've interacted with some of the top minds in a few fields, and I never come off with the feeling that they are merely farther along some kind of "intelligence spectrum". It always feels as if their thinking is different, i.e. its source and methods are a different type of brain. I think theres a few mutations floating around in a few different pools of the population

Re: The Unparalleled Genius of John von Neumann

#277

Post by rcoveson » Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 4:40 PM UTC

monktastic1 wrote: post #122

lqet wrote: post #47

"Von Neumann would carry on a conversation with my 3-year-old son, and the two of them would talk as equals, and I sometimes wondered if he used the same principle when he talked to the rest of us." - Edward Teller See [0] for a demonstration. I watched a documentary from the 80ies a long time ago. A mathematician (can't remember his name) who worked with von Neumann in Los Alamanos was interviewed. He described von…

This is terribly sad. It's also a good lesson in why not to tie your well-being to your identity (or anything else that's impermanent -- which, actually, includes everything ). It's a lesson I'm still learning.

It’s a lesson in the inevitable consequences of loving something fiercely, be that your own intellect, your spouse, or a child. You may lose any of these things before you die, and the pain will probably be proportional to the love you felt. I don’t think that’s a lesson in why not to allow yourself to love that way at all.

There may be mental pathways that allow for love without attachment. I personally don’t see them yet; perhaps I need to learn more about Zen or Daoism or something. In my unenlightened state, the only way I see to avoid the pain of loss is avoiding love in the first place, which doesn’t look like a good idea.

Re: The Unparalleled Genius of John von Neumann

#278

Post by monktastic1 » Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 5:03 PM UTC

rcoveson wrote: post #277

monktastic1 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is terribly sad. It's also a good lesson in why not to tie your well-being to your identity (or anything else that's impermanent -- which, actually, includes everything ). It's a lesson I'm still learning.

It’s a lesson in the inevitable consequences of loving something fiercely, be that your own intellect, your spouse, or a child. You may lose any of these things before you die, and the pain will probably be proportional to the love you felt. I don’t think that’s a lesson in why not to allow yourself to love that way at all. There may be mental pathways that allow for love without attachment. I personally don’t see th…

I'm far from enlightened myself, but meditation certainly has helped me a great deal in this regard. It's not that I don't grieve loss, but it's no longer such a terrifying and identity-destroying affair.

Re: The Unparalleled Genius of John von Neumann

#279

Post by hgytr » Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 5:16 PM UTC

spookthesunset wrote: post #157

x220 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've taken a medication that occasionally makes me feel stupid. For a day I might be unable to continue reading a book without re-reading each sentence a few times. I might not be able to talk to people about a complicated or technical subject without stumbling over my words. I will find it difficult to think in the abstract terms, and when I listen to others who talk about abstract values and concepts I have to cont…

> If you're intellectually gifted (many programmers are) Lets not jerk each other off too hard, eh? Just like everybody in life, in any trade or profession, most programmers are just average people like everybody else. They just happened to luck out and be good at a talent that pays well. Odds are incredibly high you aren't any smarter than somebody who paints houses for a living, fills your prescription, or plays fo…

There is a reason why a cashier works for minimum wage.

A few days ago I went to a grocery store to buy sparkling water. I got 16 small bottles and arranged them as a 4 by 4 grid before cashier, so she wouldn't need to spend time counting them and delaying the line. It took her over 10 seconds to count the bottles: apparently, she didn't recognize the pattern and counted them by groups of 3-4 bottles covering the counted ones with her hands to simplify the process. Programmers don't even need to multiply 4x4, they just see the answer. This scene hints that the cashier's analytical skills are next to none and this alone explains why she is a cashier.

Another example. There is a curious simple test to check your working memory capacity. Imagine a 3x3 grid and draw there words oil/gas/dry. Now read all the words that you see on the grid. Not all people have visual imaginations: some operate with graph-like structures and represent the grid as a set of logical statements: row1 is gas, row2 is oil, row3 is dry. This is fine as long as they do it efficiently. Most people in this task will resort to the snail analytical approach and will be thinking like: cell 2-1 is A, so cell next to the right is 2-2 belongs to word 2 which is oil and thus the second letter is I, so our current sequence is AI. Obviously it will take them ages to enumerate all the words this way. High level programmers can keep the entire grid in memory, either as an image or in symbolic form, and thus can enumerate words quickly. Why does this example matter? Programmers have to keep many objects and connections between them in memory.

If everybody had these raw cognitive skills, programmers would get the standard minimum wage. Same for accountants, lawyers, bankers.

Re: The Unparalleled Genius of John von Neumann

#280

Post by SamReidHughes » Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 5:51 PM UTC

mixmastamyk wrote: post #243

pfdietz wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a valid inference. Even during the era of nuclear testing, the great majority of cancers were not caused by radiation. Now, SMOKING...

Folks nearest to nuclear testing died early of cancer. VN didn’t smoke. Look up the movie the Conqueror. I grew up near SSFL so have some stories too.

There wasn't just testing, but a whole bunch of other nuclear and chemical research these scientists were exposed to.