24 replies to this topic

[cmorera]

http://video.google....196365903075662

1 language a week? human calculator?

a true savant

[Live Forever]

Here he is on Letterman:

[lucid]

22,500 digits of pi memorized.... truly amazing.

[cognition]

That would be daniel tammet. I recently read "born on a blue day"(wednesday)which is his book. 22500 digits for pi isn't the world record, FYI.

[JonesGuy]

Keep in mind that this boy, with these amazing powers, is only different from us in a couple (fairly insignificant) ways - developmentally. Maybe a couple different genes. Maybe a bit different uterine conditions. Still, nothing totally miraculous.

Theoretically, we should all be able to be modified to be at least this gifted, without even losing our natural minds

[Live Forever]

22500 digits for pi isn't the world record, FYI.

True. Here are the world rankings. (note: some of the lower numbers have some other significance, like youngest/oldest person on list, or fastest recitation or something)

Daniel is currently 6th, but the amazing thing about Daniel is that he did it with only a few weeks practice while most people practice for at least a year. (and sometimes several years) He also learned pretty much a full language in exactly one week. (enough to carry on a conversation on a news broadcast)

[spaceistheplace]

all of that intelligence sure hasn't lessened his ego.

[Live Forever]

all of that intelligence sure hasn't lessened his ego.

On the contrary, for a savant like him, he seemed incredibly well grounded. (much more so than others)

[Brainbox]

I stopped watching the video at the moment it's shown he was investigated for having autism.
It's stunning how certain scientists always need to explore the negative.

Like the first reaction of a lot of people on e.g. very successful sportsmen / women. "Surely they must have had a very unpleasant youth".

What kind of psychological compensation might this be? [sfty]

[lucid]

I stopped watching the video at the moment it's shown he was investigated for having autism.
It's stunning how certain scientists always need to explore the negative.

Then you missed the part where they found that he did have mild autism. He would count the numbers add up as kids in his grade played hopscotch for hours during recess and displays other poor social behaviors. Autism is part of the puzzle to this guys brain and not to be ignored. That said autism is a fairly broad label which is more of a grouping for a set of symptoms rather than a more discrete disease (I am certainly no autism expert).

[Shepard]

I stopped watching the video at the moment it's shown he was investigated for having autism.
It's stunning how certain scientists always need to explore the negative.

Who said being diagnosed with autism is negative?

Oh, snap.

[DJS]

I'd be interested to know how advanced Daniel's perspective is, what his "beliefs" are, etc.

Being a human calculator is somewhat impressive, but I'm not sure it necessarily translates into rationality (however we choose to define the term).

[maestro949]

Dr V.S. Ramachandran also diagnosed him with a form of synesthesia.

[cognition]

His beliefs? He's a christian. It's in his book"Born On a Blue Day". I'm not too sure that's rational.

[Kalepha]

I'd be interested to know how advanced Daniel's perspective is, what his "beliefs" are, etc.

Being a human calculator is somewhat impressive, but I'm not sure it necessarily translates into rationality (however we choose to define the term).

Don, you possibly already saw this, but here's a sketch.

"Will Humans Soon Live 1,000 Years? The Answer is No."

There have been a flurry of news reports in the past few days about the possibility that one day soon humans will be capable of living up to 1,000 years.

It's certainly true that the average life expectancy has risen dramatically in the past 100 years: in 1901 life expectancy for newborn babies was 45 for boys and 49 for girls. By 2000 life expectancy was 75 and 80 respectively.

However much of this improvement has come from large reductions in infant mortality due to better living conditions and access to medicine, and not because of any fundamental change in how humans age. There are in fact many reliable reports of long life spans throughout history: Plato (80 years), Augustus (76 years), Pope Celestine III (91 years), Isaac Newton (84 years). The ancient Greek philosopher Democritus of Abdera is reputed to have lived to the age of 109.

Indeed the maximum life span for humans has not really changed throughout human history; remaining around 115-120 years. The oldest-ever person was a French woman, Jeanne Calment, who lived 122.5 years (1875-1997).

It seems that with a healthy diet and regular exercise most people in the developed world today can expect to live somewhere between 70-90 years, with a small number living to or past 100 years. But claims of massively increased life spans in the near future are no more than pure speculation.

And, anyway, isn't quality of life more important than quantity?

. . .

[A comment of his under his post.]

There are too many comments to respond to them here individually, but let me attempt a few thoughts:

1. I have read Aubrey de Grey's ideas and disagree with them.

2. I'm not in the least afraid of the idea of people living very long lifespans. I just don't think it is going to happen.

3. Aging isn't a disease like depression or cancer, but an extremely complex process. I doubt whether it would ever be possible to stop it as is claimed.

4. I have no problem with research into aging - especially where the focus is on maintaining good all-round health throughout the natural lifespan.

5. Of course quantity can affect quality - the entire essence of things like art or literature or music or poetry is working within limitations. The problem with obsessing over quantity is that it negates the possibility of a full and rich life being lived in a few or few dozen years.

6. Some people achieve an enormous amount in twenty years, while others achieve little in over one hundred. Simply extending lifespan won't necessarily make us any smarter, enlightened, happier.

7. The desire for a very long lifespan is understandable and perhaps even admirable. But we have to look at it from a perspective outside of itself (as with all things). Even if something became possible that wouldn't necessarily mean we ought to do it.

Possibly more can be analyzed. I'll start by inserting this.

In response to 5., where he used "limitations," he might've instead used "constraints." They both can produce the same products of art, but the meaning of constraints recognizes that 'to be appropriately disciplined', also part of the meaning of limitations, doesn't further mean 'to have an upper bound', unlike in the intended meaning of limitations.

In response to 6., if we can live extremely extended lives, there will be some who want to take their time and smell the roses, and there will be some who want to be super-achievers, and the reasoning of either could virtually never be convincingly disputed.

In response to 7., if working out Sudoku puzzles all day every day is doable, that wouldn't necessarily mean we ought to do it.

[Shepard]

Despite certain impressive abilities, from watching the documentary on him and reading over his blog, I'm not left with the impression that this man possesses an overall powerful intellect.

[Luna]

I think he should study biology before answer such questions.

[JonesGuy]

Dr V.S. Ramachandran also diagnosed him with a form of synesthesia.

It seems pretty easy to do, given that he 'sees' objects represented as numbers.

I'd recommend watching one of Ramachandran's talks on synesthesia ... it's fascinating.

[DJS]

His beliefs? He's a christian. It's in his book"Born On a Blue Day". I'm not too sure that's rational.

You are correct sir.

Daniel Tammet - On Being a Christian

[DJS]

I'd be interested to know how advanced Daniel's perspective is, what his "beliefs" are, etc.

Being a human calculator is somewhat impressive, but I'm not sure it necessarily translates into rationality (however we choose to define the term).

Don, you possibly already saw this, but here's a sketch.

No, I hadn't put the effort into actually researching this guy, but thank you for the info. I had suspected, despite his unusual memory and recall capabilities, that in all likelihood his psychology was no more or less prone to irrationalism than the rest of humanity.

In many ways, when I think of Daniel Tammet I am reminded of Jay D Fox, one of ImmInst's former BOD chairs. Now Jay wasn't quite as exceptional as Tammet, but from my perspective his mathematical skills were still off the charts (and I've always been fairly good at math). His acumen in things like tensor calculus were certainly savant-like. Also, it is possible that both Daniel and Jay possess a mild form of Asperger's... So I guess, subconsciously, when I learned of Daniel Tammet I automatically assigned to him the disposition of Jay D Fox.

[DJS]

It's funny LF that you postd Tammet's interview on the Letterman Show, because it led me to the assocation of Letterman's "Stupid Pet Tricks" and "Stupid Human Tricks". )

Stupid Pet Tricks

[DJS]

BTW, I also find Sadie's skills to be "somewhat impressive". [sfty]

Jennifer and Sadie




Edit by Live Forever: Fixed embedding.

Edited by Live Forever, 11 July 2007 - 05:34 PM.

[zoolander]

Yeah Sadie was a little cutie

[Kalepha]

I had suspected, despite his unusual memory and recall capabilities, that in all likelihood his psychology was no more or less prone to irrationalism than the rest of humanity.

In many ways, when I think of Daniel Tammet I am reminded of Jay D Fox, one of ImmInst's former BOD chairs. Now Jay wasn't quite as exceptional as Tammet, but from my perspective his mathematical skills were still off the charts (and I've always been fairly good at math). His acumen in things like tensor calculus were certainly savant-like. Also, it is possible that both Daniel and Jay possess a mild form of Asperger's... So I guess, subconsciously, when I learned of Daniel Tammet I automatically assigned to him the disposition of Jay D Fox.

While there's some overlap, there's a considerable difference between abstract and applied mathematics. On a first hypothesis, among the mathematically purposive, people with some degree of Asperger's would have an exceptional ability in performing routines by having a relatively greater repertoire of procedural knowledge, but this would tend to be overshadowed by others' fluidity in the way of mining new developments. Having both traits, of course, should be desired. An "exceptional ability" or two just gets lost and unimpressive among the million other positive attributes each person should have altogether, including better rationality, to be impressive.

[Live Forever]

BTW, I also find Sadie's skills to be "somewhat impressive".  [sfty]

Jennifer and Sadie

That would definitely be an easy way to walk your dog every day.