291–300 of 372 posts
Alphazero was very creative, yet it didn't memorize a single move, it just self played. Deep blue was not creative at all, but it was the chess engine that memorized the most moves, todays chess engines are much better at chess and they don't memorize many moves at all, if you dig through their internals you wont find a lot of board states there. So no, creativity doesn't fundamentally comes from memorization, memori…
However, in the modern context, this has been transformed into memorizing arcane lists/tables, on which one is graded without any further manana.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you seen their art and entertainment? I assure you there is whole lot of creativity in there. And it has a whole lot MORE variety then western tend to have.
Their art and entertainment in many cases are rebellions and critiques from mainstream norms. The funny thing is that if you have a rigid conformist society, the rejects are going to double down on the "weird" much more than a well adjusted creative would.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't remember anyone who couldn't pass tests but was really a great engineer. But there are plenty of people who can pass tests and are terrible engineers. When people talk about memorization they talk about remembering the words without understanding the concepts, such a person is no better off than the person carrying around a text note with the concept written down. When you understand these concepts you will…
The science/engineering/math tests I took at Caltech were all open book, open note. They were not about regurgitating facts and formulae. But if you didn't already know them, you didn't have the time to open the book and learn about them.
Yes, you can be a bad engineer even if you pass such tests. Don't underestimate how far mindless pattern matching can take you, you can get pretty high up in international competitions just by dumb pattern matching and very little broader understanding, tests average students can pass are a piece of cake even at MIT level compared to that.
But of course such an engineer can be useful to solve constrained problems, but I wouldn't call them good since they don't really connect to the larger picture so they need a lot of oversight.
OP and others here are stretching the definition of “memorize” to mean “anything that leads to something being retained in memory.” I reject this idea. The trauma of burning your hand on a hot pan creates a memory you won’t soon forget, but almost no one would understand it as an act of memorization. Memorization to me refers to a set of cargo-culty “learning” practices wherein we believe that by using language to dr…
> We do this mainly because experts suck at empathizing with learners and fail to understand that the symbol has meaning for them but not for the learner. I hear you; but teaching deep expertise is really hard. We can use your example of a child learning their first language. They will really understand it. But people are famously, hilariously terrible at teaching their native tongue. We know how to conjugate, and ho…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right. And, I think, real expertise in any subject is choc full of tacit knowledge. Even - and especially - in areas where we have good symbolic representations. (Like music, math, programming and languages.)
The problem with English is I don't actually know the rules. Something just feels "off" sometimes when someone makes grammatical mistakes. I doubt I will ever gain this feeling (for lack of a better word) with another language. I mean how could I? Everything sounds weird and "off" when you're a beginner, right? For example: el bano, el agua, la naranja, la sillas. You're constantly suppressing warning signs flashing…
Creativity (measured by Openness in the Big Five) is a fundamental personality component that cannot be altered, in the same way that your working memory and IQ cant be altered (unsurprisingly they are closely related)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We do this mainly because experts suck at empathizing with learners and fail to understand that the symbol has meaning for them but not for the learner. I hear you; but teaching deep expertise is really hard. We can use your example of a child learning their first language. They will really understand it. But people are famously, hilariously terrible at teaching their native tongue. We know how to conjugate, and ho…
> Here’s a weird fact: if you look around the room you’re in now, I bet you know what it would feel like on your tongue to lick everything you see. We probably learned that in the “put everything in your mouth” baby phase. You are an expert. But if you wanted to, how would you teach that? I think the learner would just have to go lick a lot of things for themself. This is such a weird and amazing analogy. Thank you f…
Actually, I don't agree with that. If I look around the room I'm in now, there are a LOT of different objects, and I can imagine what they'd feel like on my tongue, even though I've never physically licked the vast majority of those types of objects. To give a couple of examples: a partly used candle, the "lighting" side of a matchbox, guitar strings, lightbulbs, new bike inner tube. The reason I can imagine how they would feel, despite never having actually licked them, is that in our early years we're just exploring the world and building a mental model. We stop licking everything quite early when we figure out the class of things that's generally food, but by that point we've learned how to correlate the sense of feelings we get from our tongue with the sense of feelings we get from our fingers, because we also touch all those items a lot with our fingers. With enough examples, we become pretty good at pattern matching across senses, so e.g. I can look at an object, from the shadows see that it's bumpy, and have a pretty good idea what it'd feel like if I rubbed it with my fingertips or even licked it, or if it's glass, plastic, metal, fabric, I'd know it'd produce different feelings ranging from differences in friction, thermal conductivity, etc.
That's quite a lot of text, but the TLDR is that we don't need to lick everything to have a pretty good idea of how it'd feel on the tongue, just enough to have a general idea of the properties of different classes of materials. Given that most babies stop licking/chewing everything before they've reached nursery age, it's clear that for objects we encounter in later life it's not the licking per-se that matters for this "skill", but whether we've learned to associate the senses.
I guess taste is a bit different, but my default would just be to assume that most objects are tasteless unless they also have an odour.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Here’s a weird fact: if you look around the room you’re in now, I bet you know what it would feel like on your tongue to lick everything you see. We probably learned that in the “put everything in your mouth” baby phase. You are an expert. But if you wanted to, how would you teach that? I think the learner would just have to go lick a lot of things for themself. This is such a weird and amazing analogy. Thank you f…
> [H]ow would you teach that? I think the learner would just have to go lick a lot of things for themself. Actually, I don't agree with that. If I look around the room I'm in now, there are a LOT of different objects, and I can imagine what they'd feel like on my tongue, even though I've never physically licked the vast majority of those types of objects. To give a couple of examples: a partly used candle, the "light…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> [H]ow would you teach that? I think the learner would just have to go lick a lot of things for themself. Actually, I don't agree with that. If I look around the room I'm in now, there are a LOT of different objects, and I can imagine what they'd feel like on my tongue, even though I've never physically licked the vast majority of those types of objects. To give a couple of examples: a partly used candle, the "light…
I feel like you totally missed the point and then reiterated exactly what they said in another way.