Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Flowers for Algernon (1965) [pdf]

sdfo.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 215 posts

Re: Flowers for Algernon (1965) [pdf]

#201

Post by Dwelve »

sandworm101 wrote: post #133
cowtools wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there is a single point in this comment that I agree with. >This is a story about how science cannot change the underlying "natural" state of a person. I don't think that's necessarily true. In the setting of the story, current the state of the art prohibits this. But It doesn't really comment on whether that's a fundamental limitation. The purpose of having the protagonist descend back into retardation…

I have known lawyers who struggle with aspergers. I was at law school with a man who had tourettes. He had to take his exams in a separate room due to his outbursts. Ive also met professionals with obsessive compulsive disorder so bad that, in the past, they might have been locked up. Mental illness, even mental disability, does not preclude as many vocations as most people think.

Shouting random things is not the same as lacking the cognitive capacity to EVER learn to tie your shoes. How on earth are you making that comparison?!

Re: Flowers for Algernon (1965) [pdf]

#202

Post by pwpw »

fweimer wrote: post #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.

Often, if you go to the native language page of Wikipedia, there will be more "relevant" material. See if the page in French has that info. If you don't read French particularly well, you can use Google Translate on the page.

I often do this to get a better understanding of local legends and stories that aren't big enough to make it to the article in English.

But perhaps you know all that. To your point, it is weird! The internet is a vast collection of knowledge and information but things that don't get recalled or engaged with often enough get pushed down and eventually completely forgotten. It's sort of like the human recollection of memories.

Re: Flowers for Algernon (1965) [pdf]

#204

Post by MollyRealized »

dmitriid wrote: post #169
gwern wrote: 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. ("…

> a real protagonist would be doing things Keys can't even imagine, which sound like gibberish Mimsy Were the Borogoves by Lewis Padgett explores this to an extent.

For those who are interested in the story: Lewis Padgett was a pseudonym for Henry Kuttner [1] and his wife. The short story is available in an anthology under that name, "The Last Mimsy", and a 2007 film was made under that title [3].

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Padgett

[2] - https://www.amazon.com/Last-Mimzy-Stories-Henry-Kuttner/dp/0...

[3] - https://www.justwatch.com/us/movie/the-last-mimzy

Re: Flowers for Algernon (1965) [pdf]

#205

Post by smugma »

johnny_reilly wrote: post #55

This book changed me. I was an idle eight year old, and my school didn't give us homework to do. So my father decided to set me homework of his own devising, which on one occasion was reading Flowers for Algernon. I was moved by the story of a man who had little natural ability, straining to make the best of what he had. Then becoming smarter than everyone around him, and then what follows. There's many things to tak…

Thank you for this comment. It encouraged me to read it to my two kids (~8) last night. I actually only got about half way through it. The younger one got bored and it actually started making me choke up. I loved the story as a kid but as an adult it hurts.

Re: Flowers for Algernon (1965) [pdf]

#206

Post by helldritch »

johnny_reilly wrote: post #55

This book changed me. I was an idle eight year old, and my school didn't give us homework to do. So my father decided to set me homework of his own devising, which on one occasion was reading Flowers for Algernon. I was moved by the story of a man who had little natural ability, straining to make the best of what he had. Then becoming smarter than everyone around him, and then what follows. There's many things to tak…

I've just been emotionally effected by this work at a deep, almost uncomfortable level.

I've worked as a mental health support worker, and this short story poked at some of the darker parts of the field: the dream of people getting "better" and wanting to "fix" them, the subtle (and not so subtle) jokes made out of their failings, having to deal with the basic human urges they don't fully understand, subjects consenting to treatment they don't have the capacity to understand, etc.

In myself, I see my own inevitable cycle of depression and elation. I'm disabled not mentally, but emotionally. I could be happier than anyone, but in the end some part of me is always dragged back into anguish. Charlie was a genius, but in his infantile state it's brought him nothing but pain.

The saddest part of all of this is that even when Charlie became smart enough to understand the world around him, he spent so little time in the relatable range of intelligence that the people he cared about struggled to communicate with him. They didn't understand, they were worried. Charlie never truly had a friend. Ms Kinnian cared for him, but they spent so little time able to meaningfully interact that friendship didn't have the chance to properly form.

I'm going to go and pet my dog, I think, until this reaction passes.

Re: Flowers for Algernon (1965) [pdf]

#207

Post by captn3m0 »

gwern wrote: post #92
SamBam wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I adore most of Chiang's work, but Understand is one of my least favorites. Fun premise, yes, but it reads to me like much less mature sci-fi, like something written by a teen about what being super-smart would feel like.

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. ("…

Brandon Sanderson has a nice video on advice on how he writes characters that are smarter than him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyaC7NmPsc0 (~5 minutes).

tl;dw: There's different axes of intelligence, and you can setup the situation perfectly to fake the character's intelligence. You can also fake wisdom/intelligence by taking as much time as you need to come up with the smartest/best response to a situation.

Doesn't apply exactly here (He has written Gods, but they are still "mostly" human except for knowing a lot more about their world), but it's good advice.

Re: Flowers for Algernon (1965) [pdf]

#208

Post by skinnymuch »

notahacker wrote: post #103
SamBam wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I adore most of Chiang's work, but Understand is one of my least favorites. Fun premise, yes, but it reads to me like much less mature sci-fi, like something written by a teen about what being super-smart would feel like.

It would have felt much more plausible with a twist at the end where his "superintelligence" was revealed to be a set of delusions related to his cognitive impairment...

People should check out Flowers for Charlie, an episode on the most excellent show It’s Always Sunny.

Re: Flowers for Algernon (1965) [pdf]

#209

Post by abecedarius »

softcactus wrote: post #189
kragen wrote: 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.

The context is the author: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James_Sidis

Re: Flowers for Algernon (1965) [pdf]

#210

Post by kbelder »

geysersam wrote: post #180
zzzzzzzza wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

actually i think we are more limited than a turing machine since even the default turing machine has a (single) infinite tape/running time. But there is a quantum turing machine/quantum lambda calculus as well. just has (probably?) a faster running time on a subset of algorithms. but essentially turing machine/quantum turing machine have the same kinds of inpus/outputs or domain/range, whereas a hyper turing machine…

I don't understand what makes you think humans operate anything like Turing machines to begin with. The only way I see to reach this conclusion is to assume Turing machines are all that exist, and the conclusion follows.

Physics (as far as we know) is calculable and can be simulated with a Turing machine. Humans reside within the domain of physics.

Basically, either humans operate like Turing machines, or we're magic.

Post reply on HN