Live data from Hacker News

Flowers for Algernon (1965) [pdf]

sdfo.org

191–200 of 215 posts

Re: Flowers for Algernon (1965) [pdf]

#191
post #158
post #19

I think too many of us believe that intelligence is valuable, in and of itself. Instead, I think we should value personal excellence. That is, making the most of the intelligence you’re given. The arc of intelligence in Flowers of Algernon is the same arc that we’ll all experience over our lifetime. With old age, we, too, will lose our intelligence. If we value intelligence, in and of itself, we’ll eventually face a…

> If we value intelligence, in and of itself, we’ll eventually face a crisis of sorts. Related, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Is_Water — > […] pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things, if they are where you tap real meaning in life, then you will never have enough, never feel you have enough. It’s the truth. Worship your body and beauty and sexual allure and…

Thanks, I hadn’t heard this speech before. It was a good reminder to live consciously - that is, choosing our values for ourselves. But, my biggest takeaway was that “the whole trick is keeping the truth (your values) up front in daily consciousness”, which I’ve found to be 90%+ of the challenge.

Re: Flowers for Algernon (1965) [pdf]

#192
post #128
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the problem with any superintelligence story; they are by definition hard to write without being superintelligent. As Vinge was famously told, "you can't write this story. No one can." If a chimpanzee could write a story about a human expert of any sort, the other chimpanzees wouldn't understand it: it would either be gibberish, or dumbed down to superficial analogies that give an illusion of understanding. ("…

we can know certain things about things that are smarter than us. perhaps even smarter than a post singularity intelligence, for instance, we are "computationally" equivalent to a turing machine: a tape with symbols on it and a head that reads and writes symbols to the tape according to rules. the natural generalization of a turing machine to infinity would be a hyper turing machine: an infinitely wide tape and infin…

The Turing machine argument (which Scott Aaronson has also made) for superintelligence being comprehensible is pointless because you wouldn't have time to run the TM to completion (look up how many FLOPS it takes to run even merely a GPT-3 model for a conversation and estimate how long it'd take you to do that by hand), the Chinese Room argument applies (only the TM understands, you, a mere component, do not), and humans are too error-prone and backslide too much to achieve certain things. Why can't you teach the dumbest kid in your school calculus if he's equivalent to a Turing machine? Because he forgets too fast to learn anything on net! The further up in difficulty you get, the more time gets spent on review and relearning before any new material can be broached. I've tutored low-performing kids, and you can almost see them forgetting material as it slips away from them after a brief period of comprehension, fading like a dream upon awakening, leaving only frustration and dissatisfaction. Even more extreme example: my mother worked in special ed and told me about how each year higher you go with the kids, the more you have to review; especially in contrast to the mainstreamed kids. Unsurprisingly, this asymptotes at a low level. Perhaps the most extreme example are 'click' or threshold things: you can talk about dynamic programming to someone all you want, but if it hasn't clicked, it isn't there; many Ravens matrix style problems are like that; and Piagetian developmental stages are famous for that - if you are a kid who doesn't get that volume of water is conserved from a rectangular glass to a square glass, you don't get it.

Re: Flowers for Algernon (1965) [pdf]

#193

Around second grade, something odd happened to me: I discovered I had a photographic memory. For a while I was a trick pony who could read an entire book page once then recite it verbatim. I couldn't understand why other people couldn't do this. Then, a year or so later...it stopped. Not all at once; it became gradually harder and harder to do it, and one day I realized the ability was gone. As all of this was happen…

Eidetic memory is rare, somewhat controvercial but always found in children who grow out of the ability, much like how children lose the ability to learn a 2nd 3rd and 4th language without an foreign accent up until 12 years +/-.

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

Re: Flowers for Algernon (1965) [pdf]

#194
post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most interesting book I've found on the motivations of a super-genius is Notes on the Collection of Transfers . https://www.sidis.net/TransfersContents.htm

I'm not sure I understand. I think I'm missing some context.

Look into it. It's fascinating.

Re: Flowers for Algernon (1965) [pdf]

#195
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disproven is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Is there a study you are citing?

Fair. I meant my claim there more as a question. I only have vague memories of the Sapir Whorf hypothesis. Quickly scanning, I can't find anything definitive. Probably the criticism from Pinker, is what I remember?

OK, whoa, sorry... let's take a step back here. I did not mean to imply that language is the sole or complete determinant of culture, or anything remotely that definitive. My statement was overbroad and should've been something way more limited, like "language reflects cultural groupings" or some such. I am not a linguist or an anthro-anything, just a random guy on the internet making observations... sorry if I overstepped.

I did not realize the whole color relativity thing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity_and_the_...) or the underlying linguistic models (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity) were under such continued debate (but of course they are, how naive of me).

It's an interesting thing to ponder, but I don't think my underlying claim is extraordinary -- that the ready-built groupings a language has or does not have in part reflects the commonness of their use in that culture. Essentially, that every culture has their own Venn diagrams, and those overlaps may be similar but not exactly the same across cultures. Is that more limited claim under debate? It seems self-evident to me, but that could just be my ignorance.

Like when I think of "French food" as an American, a certain type of restaurant comes to mind, but presumably actual French people don't categorize all their cuisines under one simplistic label like that. I know that's the case with Chinese food, at least.

Or other examples, the whole "is a burger a sandwich" debate, or how human races are differently perceived by cultures who don't see a lot of them, or how time is measured and communicated differently across cultures, or animal taxonomies before modern genetics and Linnean classification (e.g. a "whale" sometimes called a "whale fish" in other cultures, or whether a bumblebee is a subtype of a honeybee)... all I'm saying is that linguistic groupings evolve differently across cultures because cultures have different needs.

I think even the "is this really a thing outside of movies" question is actually another great example of this, where Hollywood has its own cultural groupings, and those may or may not overlap with real-world American schools (and if so, which schools in which areas/subcultures?). Or, how "nerd" and "jock" fall into relative disuse once you enter the white-collar business world, which is its own subculture with imperfect groupings like "designers (who never touch code? not necessarily)" vs "engineers (who never look at UIs? hardly)".

Re: Flowers for Algernon (1965) [pdf]

#196
post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly how I felt. It explores what motivations of a super-intelligence might be in a way that I hadn't seen before. I understand the commenter's sentiment though--it's difficult to read an earnest story about a super intelligent trans-human because the archetype of "cool and collected super genius" has been done to death and has become cringeworthy.

The most interesting book I've found on the motivations of a super-genius is Notes on the Collection of Transfers . https://www.sidis.net/TransfersContents.htm

I looked at it and seems this is a collection of inane ramblings about a supremely irrelevant subject: change my mind?

Re: Flowers for Algernon (1965) [pdf]

#197
post #196
post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most interesting book I've found on the motivations of a super-genius is Notes on the Collection of Transfers . https://www.sidis.net/TransfersContents.htm

I looked at it and seems this is a collection of inane ramblings about a supremely irrelevant subject: change my mind?

You're beginning to get the idea, if a bit shorthanded in the empathy department.

Re: Flowers for Algernon (1965) [pdf]

#198
What confused me a lot that I remember seeing this as a movie, but it was not the 1968 version or the 2000 TV remake. There is a French remake that's not referenced on the English-language Wikipedia page (Des fleurs pour Algernon, from 2013 or 2014, it's distinct from 2006 version).

It's kind weird when you remember something and the Internet appears to be telling you that it doesn't actually exist.

Re: Flowers for Algernon (1965) [pdf]

#199
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair. I meant my claim there more as a question. I only have vague memories of the Sapir Whorf hypothesis. Quickly scanning, I can't find anything definitive. Probably the criticism from Pinker, is what I remember?

OK, whoa, sorry... let's take a step back here. I did not mean to imply that language is the sole or complete determinant of culture, or anything remotely that definitive. My statement was overbroad and should've been something way more limited, like "language reflects cultural groupings" or some such. I am not a linguist or an anthro-anything, just a random guy on the internet making observations... sorry if I overs…

I don't think you're claim is extraordinarily, either. I just thought it was online with some of the ideas in Sapir Whorf that have been criticized lately. I am not scanning too deep, but I can't find evidence of what I was talking about. Such that I think it is safe to say I was just wrong.

At any rate, I sincerely meant that I agree this is neat topic. I just wanted to put in my scepticism that this attitude was fully an American thing.

Re: Flowers for Algernon (1965) [pdf]

#200

I always hated this story. For me, the underlying theme is one of class and social structure. The illiterate man is lifted above his situation by science. He is then hammered back down. This is a story about how science cannot change the underlying "natural" state of a person. It is a lesson for scientists about not messing with god-given realities. I also don't like the linking of one's job to one's intelligence. Th…

"Science overcomes nature" is one of the most boring, unthoughtful, cliché stories people can write. No, science does not do that. At best you can say progress makes fighting nature a little easier, but wes sure as hell are not going to "overcome nature" - ever. Your desire to "overcome nature" IS nature. It's absolutely paradoxical to overcome it, you're just doing what nature tells you to do, lol.
Post reply on HN