/sci/ - Science & Math

https://akarlin.com/intro-apollos-ascent/

>A narrow intellectual elite is responsible for 99%+ of new scientific discoveries. This implies that unlike the case with an economy at large, where peasants and truck drivers make real contributions, you need to have a certain (high) threshold level of IQ to materially contribute to technological and scientific progress today.

>The Anne Roe study of very eminent scientists in 1952 – almost Nobel worthy, but not quite – found that they averaged a verbal IQ of 166, a spatial IQ of 137, and a math IQ of 154. Adjusted modestly down – because the Flynn Effect has only had a very modest impact on non-rule dependent domains like verbal IQ – and you get an average verbal IQ of maybe 160 (in Greenwich terms). These were the sorts of elite people pushing progress in science 50 years ago.

>To really understand 1950s era math and physics, I guesstimate that you would need an IQ of ~130+, i.e. your typical STEM grad student or Ivy League undergrad. This suggests that there is a 2 S.D. difference between the typical intellectual level needed to master something as opposed to making fundamental new discoveries in it.

>Moreover, progress becomes steadily harder over time; disciplines splinter (see the disappearance of polymath “Renaissance men”), and eventually, discoveries become increasingly unattainable to sole individuals (see the steady growth in numbers of paper coauthors and shared Nobel Prizes in the 20th century). In other words, these IQ discovery thresholds are themselves a function of the technological level. To make progress up the tech tree, you need to first climb up there.

>>16016835
That table is dog shit
My iq is slightly above 100 and I mastered differential calculus. Even discovered a neat fact about integration approximation myself.

>>16016938
Prove it for both

>>16016835
>Moreover, progress becomes steadily harder over time; disciplines splinter (see the disappearance of polymath “Renaissance men”), and eventually, discoveries become increasingly unattainable to sole individuals (see the steady growth in numbers of paper coauthors and shared Nobel Prizes in the 20th century). In other words, these IQ discovery thresholds are themselves a function of the technological level. To make progress up the tech tree, you need to first climb up there.
doesnt answer the question, are solo discoveries still happening or not? doesnt have to be nobel since thats an institution that stifles outliers due to its political views.

>>16016212
Not necessarily, but its increasingly hard because low hanging fruits are already done for. To specialize in a field and be at the forefront of a discovery, you need to work with dozens or so pursuing the same frontier knowledge. You could choose to go alone but you'll be missing out on all the resources available at the pool. It makes no sense unless you're seeking glory.

>>16017682
any examples of this in recent times?

by solo i mean like newton solo. he obviously had shoulders to stand on, and gauss was working on some same things, but he was almost entirely by himself.

>>16016938
If you don't understand the nuances of series convergence you know nothing about Calculus. It's all just a temporal illusion.

>>16017691
Terrance Tao for example is at the forefront of mathematics. There are only a dozen or so people he interacts with on equal footing in the whole world. They pool together their thoughts/works/etc and share their hunches with each other whenever they interact with each other. Why would he do that? Because on the chance that someone else in the field might give him insights that he failed to realize on his own. They're not worried about glory stealing from each other either as each of them are working on different hunches of their own, so they're all operating in parallel and pursuing their own, but will pool resources together to help each other out on off days. The more someone helps out others, the more their name appears on co-author/etc.

Its like you asking your neighbor in college dorms for help with some problem. Everyone has their own interest to pursue and helping each other with intrinsic problems by giving unique perspective helps everyone

>>16017704
I keep hearing about Terence Tao, but I'm not even sure what discoveries he's known for. What are they?

And he can't be the only example. There should statistically be hundreds of thousands of Tao tiers, so what are they doing? Obviously full Chinese people are working in secret to expand China, which is why they're winning the trade war, but what are the public geniuses doing?

>>16017713
hundreds or thousand of

>>16017713
He's extremely busy. He's recently just accepted as the head of mathematics/AI foundation or something. Before that, a year or so ago, he was developing a mathematical AI proof language to help bridge the gaps between mathematical proof and AI

>>16017719
AI projects are code heavy so it's unrealistic to epect these to be solo efforts.

I still don't know what Tao's achievements are. Is he a charlatan like Yudkowsky?

>>16017741
https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=TFx_gLQAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate

This is too over your head, but here's an incomplete his works. Yudkowsky is a public speaker afaik, he's not a researchers publishing any real scientific work, just ethical frameworks. Terrance dives into the edge of mathematics

>>16017746
It's over your head too unless you can explain it and had to copypasta.

>>16017719
>mathematical AI proof language
Unless you're talking about something I don't know, Lean is just a proof verifier.
>He's recently just accepted as the head of mathematics/AI foundation or something
He's helping create problems for ML models, on a committee. That doesn't mean he's an expert in ML
>>16017713
>There should statistically be hundreds of thousands of Tao tiers, so what are they doing?
If they're successful they're working as quants at some investment firm or bank. Mathematicians make jack shit, how many geniuses are willing to forgo material comfort/recognition for the sake of research

>>16017903
if theyre quants they probably arent working solo. i cant think of any pursuits in that that arent by necessity team efforts. and then most of the effort doesnt result in new discoveries, its mainly modifications and mild improvements, but not in a way that would be a gateway to a new area in scientific knowledge.

>>16017741
you have never read yudkowsky

>>16017933
case in a point one of his fellow pseud faggot defenders. theyre never able to show how hed know things and only post low energy sass.

>>16017932
>i cant think of any pursuits in that that arent by necessity team efforts
Is there any recent (major) discovery that didn't involve other people in some way? Like in the op pic, einstein enlisted the help of a mathematician to help with a lot of the tensor calculus when theorizing GR
>mainly modifications and mild improvements, but not in a way that would be a gateway to a new area in scientific knowledge
We seem to have collectively agreed that minor improvements are more important than research. Reducing latency in trades on the NYSE by 4 milliseconds makes way more money than some pure math research that might be used in 100 years.
If we decided to shift our priorities as a society then our geniuses would actually be working on furthering humanity, not just making money on the stock market. It's kinda sad to think of how much further ahead we could be

>>16017955
>Like in the op pic, einstein enlisted the help of a mathematician to help with a lot of the tensor calculus when theorizing GR
the difference is the depth of his own contribution didnt lead to an outcry from his partners, and theres no evidence of einstein having stolen the research, just as neither newton nor gauss could have possibly stolen calculus from each other, and no one ive heard of did so, we einstein can claim his discovery for himself.

so are there any solo geniuses doing this these days? i dont know if terence tao can be said to be one, because none of his achievements really stand out afaict, even though the mathematicians whove said hes done fundamental work are probably right.

i found one that could be close, the japanese guy who discovered a potential basis for immortality through stem cells, which is clearly fundamental. it seems like he made the breakthrough, though he shared the nobel with someone who did earlier research but with less precision far earlier. but the japanese man could possibly be considered solo for the breakthrough.

>>16017977
>einstein can claim his discovery for himself
You do realize that Einstein literally had a co-author on his paper describing GR, right? He probably did most of the work, but even a century ago knowledge was so specialized he needed help. See attached

>>16016212
Why is the notion of personal credit important?

>>16017988
i said in the op
>(or at least primarily by themselves to the point they can be acknowledge to deserve the credit)

>>16017989
it isnt, im just wondering if solo geniuses are still making fundamental contributions even if the trees have been mostly picked.

>>16018003
Yitang Zhang massively tightened the maximum gap between primes, but almost immediately after his pre-print was published people started finding better lower bounds, and there was even a forum dedicated to it
As populations increase in size, and education/nutrition improves, you're inevitably going to get more smart people. Technology also has allowed people from around the world to communicate through email/zoom/whatever.
Also, knowledge is a lot more specialized nowadays. In the 1600s a bright 20 year old could know 90% of all published math, and start his own work as a mathematician, nowadays you don't even learn about 19th century math until your second/third year as a math major, let alone 20th/21st century math.
It's simply much more efficient to work with other smart people across subfields, so that everyone has a different perspective

https://voca.ro/1jRlMKN4KAdW

My response.
tldr; Decentralized geniuses will continue the tradition.

>>16018031
you misread my understanding and intent. idc about credit in itself, that would be a byproduct of ability and achievement.

you made a misstep about ai voices, were already at the point where emphatic voices can be synthed in real time.

even if you take into account ai assists, where does ai contribution begin and end especially in the near future? what about if ai surpasses human creativity? what if human geniuses get subsumed by ai creativity? pinpointing a solo human genius's individuality is simple, they are an organism born with one heart and one cranium and have the ability to produce genius work (yes) with no known exception. how do you define individuality and multiplicity in machines? could any supra human creative machine really be said to be a solo genius?

>>16016835
1. anne roe study is based on historical
information, and I don't know how it corrects for exagerations and perceived specialness
2. "guesstimate"
3. "almost Nobel-worthy"
I don't believe anyone who writes and thinks in those terms has ever seen how science is conducted, how "elite scientists" are in person, read any philosophy of science or what scientists think about scientific process. The idea of increaising specialization is misunderstood. Do you think what scholastics, alchemists, greek physicians and naturalists, roman lawyers did was less demanding? The apparent less specialized fields are less developed, when reading modern and ancient, medieval, 19th century and other scientists' works it nevers seems as if the scope of their expertise is vastly different between them. They know intimately what they do a lot, and have superficial understanding of the things they inherited from previous generations of scholars. I believe that the relative difficulty of solving an unsolved problem is roughly constant, what you could perceive as a breakthrough (after 50 years or more) was a necessary consequence of focused work on solving encountered most immediate problems, but when reading or hearing about "The Discoveries and the Discoverers" you don't get a clear view on the chain of syllogisms, alternative hypotheses being ruled out and the logical nature of the discovery or solution to a problem. The tendency is to treat The Discoverers as not human. Do you think the fag that wrote your picrel knows anything about the life of Newton, Perelman, ancient greek philosophers and others besides "they were great intelligent and wise men working hard?". This level of understanding of history of science is as good as "proving" by stating the problem P in the 1st step and then declaring that the solution was found by a certain very special man from 300 years ago in the 2nd step, Q.E.D.

>>16018100
I agree that that pic is completely retarded, but
>Do you think what scholastics, alchemists, greek physicians and naturalists, roman lawyers did was less demanding?
Yes (in terms of prerequisite work required.)
A few centuries ago if you were literate you could have read a couple books, then studied under a tutor/mentor for a few years in a given specialization and then start publishing research. Now you need 4 years secondary school, 4 years undergraduate education, and 4+ years for a phd to BEGIN making substantial contributions to the sciences/humanities in your specific subspecialty. There is just so much more stuff you need to know nowadays

>>16018095
>(op) they can be acknowledge to deserve the credit
This was not misunderstood, it’s just a part of the response, sir.
>ai voices
I never talked about this. I spoke about ai assistance to compliment the gifted.
>
Elaboration may be further required. Machines are simply a byproduct of us, and they may eventually develop enumerated depth to the point we cannot recognize the difference between ourselves and them, but there is such component as spirituality (vi; consciousness), which irrelevant as to whether you agree, sits outside material position and likely as a transceiver. And with the body solely operating as a receiver or as only a transmitter, however one might look at it, you could try to reference monads as a counter to this idea, that machine cannot and will not access the spirit without becoming biological, thus not remaining the concept of current, ‘machine’, anymore; but at that point it’s rather superfluous as it’s entirely imaginative in the literal sense. Monads demand superimposing another theoretical layer of reality (real reality), and if it has definition it can be conquered - again, it’s meandering. Until we can predict or experience such a hypothetical as machines divulging souls, the deductive is only inferred with what we have at our disposal.

As a brief continuation of your op post, and my previous answer, we will see technology advance to the point that only geniuses will be able to diffuse what is possible, and what is not. Corporations, government, technology, and people will amalgamate to a point they are inseparable and sans individuals, personality, becomes your reality. I can’t helpfully and specifically extrapolate further without a succession of replies, though obtusely, it will become impossible for even the above average to navigate true, or real creation successfully. They will have become so inundated environmentally, technologically, it will be exasperating to externally live sincerely. Even internally.

>>16018188
>I never talked about this. I spoke about ai assistance to compliment the gifted.
you described those ai assistants as being monotone and emotionless, but realistic voices for them are already a standard.
makes spirit and consciousness the same,

>Elaboration
are you taking these stances as dogma? each of these is debatable in principle. i believe in spirit and consciousness but dont consider these necessarily biological.

>Corporations, government, technology, and people will amalgamate to a point they are inseparable and sans individuals, personality, becomes your reality.
most individuals could rapidly blend or be outcompeted but there will be those who choose to reject collectivism. some of them sould siphon the resources available to the hivemind yet remain unblended and distinct. we can potentially call at least some of these individuals.

>>16018188
btw you also said we havent had tech explosions in 100 years, but in rational categorical terms, how are directable atomic weapons capable of extinctizing the human race or power provinces not incredible technology?

>>16018213
>voice
I am not talking about voice modulation. Unfortunately you don’t understand because of certain conditions.

>dogma
>individuals
Yes, each of these is faceted to infinitesimal degree without announcement, and can always receive extension by following them with more fractal elaboration to their adjacent. But I find it rather pointless without purpose, so you are free to rebuttal them on your own.

You appear to be a rather literal person. Hence you have a condition relative to this interaction. Let me state outright; the topics I make highlight of are ambiguous. They will remain generalized as it would take repeated excise to sufficiently narrow it all down to the thorough and acute, which I am not willing to do unless you provide something provoking. When you read someone’s post, please stead to distill information into fluidity, let it pour out wherever it might go. This way, it is irrelevant to how or what someone says in only the literal, so you can simply extrapolate beyond what you were given at all lengths, which in some ways you have no problem with. Others, however, you are creating only a similarity with your responses, and you are stifling yourself by demanding an obedience and conformation to words themselves, instead of embracing the spirit of what they represent, which is what really matters. It might not be possible to think otherwise as you currently do, but it may help to try and think differently if you can; not to permanently change, but as an experimentation: Semantic slavery destroys freedom.

>bomb
Another literal inquiry, though in literal terms, you are correct that nuclear capabilities is a magnitude higher than dynamite. As an extension of your literal request, if you look at technology and their fields in generations, eras, where they blend together from one into the next, the nuclear bomb and WWII represent the end of the old era and the beginning of a new. But if you really want to get facetious, they really do not.

>>16018304
what do you consider a technological accelerative explosion

>>16018304
Feels like your trying way too hard to sound smart my guy. That's fine ig, but at least be a decent writer

>pointless without purpose
tautology
>rebuttal them on your own
*rebut
>you have a condition relative to this interaction
Huh?
>topics I make highlight of
*topics I highlight
or
*topics I make note of
>stead to distill information into fluidity, let it pour out wherever it might go
As opposed to you writing 3 paragraphs that almost say nothing?
>It might not be possible to think otherwise as you currently do, but it may help to try and think differently if you can
wordy, rewrite
>But if you really want to get facetious, they really do not.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding this because it's not very clear, but probably incorrect usage of facetious

>>16018472
its incorrect. maybe a typo of factually. my post seems to have emotionally stirred him into speaking flakily and profusely as a defense mechanism to his ego because he was speaking distinctly more concretely previously. probably because i called him on his incomplete knowledge of ai voice synthing.

i have met no ai researcher who called "ai" personalities/personas/psyches/identities (all of which are far clearer terms for the notions) "voices", and people who do this are either using implausible deniability to poorly cover up their mistake or are poor communication skill schizoids.

he drew the incorrect inference that im a literal person even as i treated certain topics as concepts open to debate with no dogmatic stance taken and otherwise spoke in subjunctives throughout the thread.

hes obviously not as intelligent as hed like to project. he assumes everyone else is dumber than him (see his vocaroo where he assumed i havent poured many days of research into the general topic) which he shouldnt do since this is one of the boards where legitimate prodigies browse occasionally, and they are far more precise and skilled at communication than him, as per einsteins dictum. terence tao is especially skilled at clear communication when considering how abstract his research is. anons is probably in the 130s and fairly emotionally stunted and bad at lying until shown otherwise.

>>16018472
>>pointless without purpose
>tautology
in philosophical terms, its not. phenomena can be pointless with purpose and meaningful without purpose. people like me and him make considerations that make this differentiation worth making explicit occasionally.

those topics were an activity with facets that he wasnt interested to pursue.

>>16018472
>>you have a condition relative to this interaction
>Huh?
this is clear, he just means i have some qualities that according to him hinder myself as far as the particulars of the conversation go. not wrong since im phone posting and i incorrectly wrote he might have done a typo of factually and not factual, among other typos and formatting errors that hinder communication, but again, he drew quite a few incorrect inferences about me.

>>16016212
the age of the public knowing about it has long been over.

>>16017989
because humans compete for mates.

>>16016212
We literally live in the super hero age, single scientists are taking on entire fields, governments and ideologies single handedly.

Jordan Peterson alone knocked Psychology and Theology out of the park...

>>16018523
okay faggot. btw youre obvious in the 120s for iq.

>>16018525
IQ is a invalid assessment for me, its questions contain errors.

If I take an IQ test I will find errors in the questions and invalidate the test, not give the "low IQ highwit" answer.

t.started a test and realized the creators of it are too stupid to accurately assess me

>>16018528
classic midwit cope

>>16018536
>breaks the IQ test
>cope

YOUR COPE OVERRIDES REALITY, THE BIGGEST COPE POSSIBLE.

>>16018523
>Juden Peterstein
lol

>>16018539
>breaks the IQ test
>by getting a low score and complaining about it, then insisting he's actually smarter than the people who created it
the only thing broken here is your mind.

>>16018542
>Juden Peterstein
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHSHAHAHAHAHAHAHHSHAGAHAGAHHAHAHAHAJFKKRHDJTZNGDJFXJGXKHCMGDKGDBFDMHXYKDJGDKYDKYSBTWVXSBT

HOLY SHIT, YOU ARE SO FUNNY, OH EM GEE!

>>16018544
WHAT FIELD WAS YOUR THESIS ON, FAGGOT?

>>16018549
My thesis was on the delusions of grandeur and common comorbidity of narcissism often experienced by the severely autistic.

>>16018550
>disengage to LARP the victor
CHAMPIONS DONT FLEE THE BATTLEFIELD.

ALL OF YOUR FIELDS ARE MINE (except the one I dont like, like Chemisty (YUCKY GROSS FAG FIELD).

>>16018551
you have genuine mental issues and I hope you seek professional help and get better someday.

>>16018542
>>16018544
>>16018550
>>16018552
I have no idea who you're arguing with but I'm going to assume it's one of this board's many retarded namefaggot incels that I've got filtered. Please stop feeding it.

>>16018552
Youre not a doctor.

...you just pretend to be one on the internet.

>>16018554
HAHAHA A REDDIT FAGGOT WHO HANGS AROUND NAZIS BECAUSE HIS GROUP IS SO SHIT AND HE KNOWS IT.

GO HOME, FAGGOT

>>16018552
Imagine being baited like that, you are retarded AF.

>>16018572
SHOW ME THE CHEMISTRY!

>>16018500
>distinctly
Yes, when you create a recording because you do not have time to write, you try to be as direct and as shallow as possible. It was offered in cordialness, not condescension.
>ai
>voice
I am not an ai researcher, I never stated this. Again, your focus on ‘voice’ is a literal demand to use words in certain ways. If you want to continue harping on this, okay, I’ll be patient, but if you can’t see we simply have different aesthetic holds, and the foundational context is near identical, it’s likely you’re just malicious.
>subjunctive
If you’ve taken offense to my portrayal of you, let me define and assure you that you have misunderstood what I have meant by literal. You are literal in the sense of semantics. This is extremely common in academia, they cannot let go hyper-conflict contradiction and non-use of tautology. I’m willing to wager you believe that words have a single defining use in direct unambiguous fashion pertaining to the context the word is used. “Their, there.” i.e there are rules to follow, and so much like the individual you responded to above, you likewise find language as strict. This is why you do not afford ‘voice’ any other characteristic, such as with independence, mind, character, like you do with the other words. “Emotionless dull voices”, yes, but how is this important focus for your inquiry when it is about geniuses and addended compliment of ai for them? Don’t I directly imply in the recording that voices will evolve because of technological advancement? The fixation on voices is insipid, but it’s direct evidence of your literal thinking. Demand for semantic literalness is why you are literal, not because of failed abstract conceptualization.

>iq
For the record, I am over three sd, fifteen weight.

>>16018472
I write this way because it masks how I actually communicate, simultaneously in its pleonasm, allows the vague association of the words used to trigger further thought in someone else whereas otherwise they might not. It again relies upon remaining ambiguous to allow inference. Most people, like yourself, pick up that something is different, because it is, and oftentimes, hate it.

>>16016835
>intuit Pythagorean Theorem
I still have no intuition for why that theorem is true. Used it a bunch, seen multiple proofs, watched videos on 'why its true', I can see how symbolically the cosine law resolves to it at 90 degrees, but it still feels like just an equation, rather than a self-evident feature of geometry.

>>16018353
>advancement
Being able to change reality from beyond the material, if you want to know what I really do think. In terms of technology, the nuclear bomb is not as dangerous as one might believe; most died from the radiation and environmental variables, the death toll by immediate proximity is only a lacking estimation. This is assuming the bomb is real. I don’t mull over this, albeit. The car? It can be arguable it’s more impressive than the bomb, because it allowed true massive settling for humanities expansion. The television? That too, but not much unlike the radio for its purposes. Chip technology? Regulated by the government and advancement is plateauing. MRNA and gene technology is very interesting, but as it currently stands it’s in infancy, though the speculative aspects of it being a eugenics tool is important.

Every thought I have on the question is really founded through the context of the occult, and not specific technologies themselves. Harping on referenced ages/eras above, within the new frame, if I was to say we have already progressed to similar levels of technology, even beyond us currently, with civilizations long before us, that would sound rather ridiculous, yes? To someone who might only be requesting the deductive, it is important to stay in the present. But truly, I do not think each field is relevant or important, or whether there were humanities before us, but how we could be or might be able to be now and in the future. What is important is what control is defined as, and who defines it. How much one might lose of their own will, simply because a nanomachine demands they act different.

If I could put it in another way, when we have criminals releasing compounds and aerosols to start controlling people, we could probably consider that true technological advancement, as it pertains to the demonic, with what spirituality even is.

>>16018188
>>16018304
>>16018500
reads like the stuff I had to endure for humanities credits, 'scholars' shitting up pages and pages with bullshit in order to convince others and themselves that they actually did something during their 6 months in Brazil 'studying the intersection of Catholicism and local mythologies.' Passive voice for the sake of adding more syllables to words, redundancy, randomly clarifying the nuances of some inconsequential point.

>>16019010
Yes, it’s a filter.

>>16019012
you mean that way of writing filters readers, or that the guy is pushing his text through an AI filter?

>>16018111
most of school is wasted time, you could take a mature and interested 16 year old almost straight to PhD-type research. I remember reading Kripke's bio on wikipedia
> Kripke later said, "I wish I could have skipped college. I got to know some interesting people but I can't say I learned anything. I probably would have learned it all anyway just reading on my own."
and thinking that he was a pompous asshole "le child prodigy", but if you go to university you will quickly realize that only thing it is good for is finding cool science friends and access to labs, all non-lab classes could be done by yourself just reading, solving problems, writing etc. Practically the whole undergrad is just teaching you the alphabet of your discipline, most classes are at least 20 years behind current research and you never solve real problems, it is kindergarten for adults. Without the gatekeeping, unnecessary classes etc. you could start working at a lab with your professor 1st day at uni and in a year, after getting the hang of the techniques start making small contribution to the work of whole team, all the necessary knowledge can be obtained faster just by reading and conversation with your professor and senior students. Years of high school and previous schools are essentially wasted, you ever wonder why you start undergrad with the same things you were "taught" in HS? It is impossible to teach anyone real useful chemistry or biology or math of physics the way they do before university. Why should a HS student know the rudimentary useless facts about molecular biology techniques or spectroscopy or organic chemistry? There real problem lies not within the specialization and increased difficulty of new disciplines, but withing the weakening intellectual culture, chase for prestige and people liking the appearance of things rather than their essence.

>>16019010
>>16019012
>>16019021
I am not vindictively attempting to filter a reader. Pretentiousness is also only its skin. My intentions with violet prose is to invoke a high minded, violent judicator from those who are able to deconstruct what underlies within the text. It’s an attempt, which does succeed, though with varying success to the goal, in making known those who might have otherwise stayed quiet. Sadism is a trait that is found consistently in competition, the application of triggering it is effective; their will of moral apprehension is what demands response. What I appreciate to happen, is when someone can distill it and find an exponential outside its boundary. When the words where they may not completely belong are given a patience anyway, it makes those conversations worth ideating in, eventually, to a more direct and approachable format. When you do not know if nuance will be lost upon reception, it is worth pressuring initially to conclude.

>>16018950
>If you’ve taken offense to my portrayal of you, let me define and assure you that you have misunderstood what I have meant by literal. You are literal in the sense of semantics.
gee you really think so when im the biggest contributor to linguistic philosophy itb

>>16018974
>Chip technology? Regulated by the government and advancement is plateauing.
never before has data been able to spread so profusely over the planet to virtually every community. if that isnt a tech acceleration nothing is bruh. it is obviously regulated but a third worlder can store a small library in his last gen shitty phone. thats an absurd amount of data compared to what was workable through radio.

>>16018974
>Being able to change reality from beyond the material, if you want to know what I really do think.
if you really think about it atomic weapons or at least the idea of them made pax americana possible which is the first time in history any highly stable global peace consciously happened. i consider its capacity to remove life from the equation a lesser secondary byproduct of its sheer power.

>>16019139
Yes, and it hampers you.
>>16019150
And what are books before that? And before that the oratory? Again, like I’ve already stated, technological advancement is at a state of infancy. For a literal present mindedness, it may be difficult to be intimate with spiritual concepts having validity. For clarification, that was an insinuation of literal thinking, and not semantics.

>>16019157
it hampers you more
what religion are you (i consider religion and spirituality beneficial)

>>16019155
That is an interesting way to define it, though America is still biologically equivalent as all other nations, and therefore I do not find it relevant pertaining to magnitudes. If the Japanese controlled the bomb, nothing really is any different from an American or German during that age, regardless of peace. But I agree in the political context, especially if you would want to specify about geopolitical implications. However that is something I am not apt within, than say, idea spheres.

>>16019157
>And what are books before that? And before that the oratory?
i accept your concession.
today is like being able to go to a library and instead of stealing a book, a third worlder can tap it and a copy appears in his magic cube. thats a completely revolutionary change in data transfer, because it gives the common man far more opportunities to thrive and for parity.

>>16019164
>hampers
Maybe; you may be right, and not in a condescending mockery of write response but of sincerity, as I have been in the entirety. But I do doubt this, since being literal semantic is necessary in curriculum, it does not appeal to many confines you can find outside of it, and denies tautology and hypocrisy as valid concepts of articulation. If you dismiss forms of thought, why?

>>16019172
>
If you contrast my explanation of the car and human settlement, really the vehicle itself, information and knowledge translates exactly the same way as a car might. Can you not see these implications? If we only have 2000 characters to write, one must stricken full context. It is up to the reader to inquire or imply.

>>16017649
its me again, there is your proof for both

>>16019199
i have to correct myself a bit, the rectangle area is not the same as the actual area under the graph of f, its approximately the area and the more x's you have the better the approximation becomes.

>>16017697
>if you dont understand some detailed nuances you know nothing
i can compute many derivatives and integrals by hand and if a function cannot be differentiated or integrated by hand i can interpret results that a software gives me. if you know that 1 % more than me about the topic that doesnt mean that i havent mastered it.

>>16019174
What even is a literal semantic?

>>16019491
It is just a classifier for a certain type of behavior and thinking. I’ve observed from academics and intellectual social circles certain patterns that display from their consciousness and subsequently, interpretations. Literal semantics, or semantic literals, focus on the words themselves giving definition, regardless of how many words they might know. Stringent obedience to technical hierarchy and governance of syntax, is very common in academia, where a word dictates the arguments entire context. What ends up happening, however, is the formation of an inability to allow non-validated forms of thought from within their sphere, such as hypocrisy, or tautology, or spirit of the law. It’s the incompleteness of how they think that forces them to only view the word as meaning, not the employment of words to find meaning. It’s very difficult for people to fracture their personal tastes; largely related to ego. Inevitably, they end up faltering to become something more than what semantic literation allows them. If you do not understand, inquire.

>>16019618
ive been typing like this out of disregard for rules and discuss concepts very openly and otherwise question dogmas. theres hardly anyone less literal than me.

>>16019640
The posts you’ve made above in this thread are contrary of that claim. As well, lowercases and punctuation are frivolous aesthetic. If you don’t understand, you may also inquire.

>>16019804
Frivolous may not be the correct word.

>>16019804
>The posts you’ve made above in this thread are contrary of that claim.
this is a very literal statement and in your post where you used facetious in a very awkward way, never mind the rest of it, made you come across as a poor communicator. its as you put it, frivolous aesthetics.

>>16019819
Yes, and this is why you’re a literal semantic. Until you understand that how you ideate and interpret will continue to be controlled by this underlying mechanical servitude to language authority, and your policing for it, you will not be able to escape thinking in this limitation. Further, you are clearly treating our interactions as competitive, and it has been apparent throughout. Stop, please.

>>16019022
Gee, what we need is some imperial proof that the previous perceptions of universities and research can't see past their own nose sometimes and it make such a a scene we make them free the labs. Let regular people get a license or something to operate equipment and make a heck of a lot more of it. Make public education only about teaching you how to be a researcher in whatever thing you are pursuing. I also want competitive subscriptions to seasonal research events where theories get tested and we see the results come out in realtime. If a diploma is worthless formal educations only excuse to exist is to teach you how to contribute to the total body of knowledge.

>>16019833
I mean, our ancestors taught their children to hunt and forage food. Now that has to be done with data and ideas. Teach your children to hunt for the truth.

>>16019832
dont reddit lecture me, im good ty.

>>16019840
It’s a warning of your future lad, not a gloat.

>>16019843
tell me how many languages you think i speak based on my syntactical patterns
give an undeniable, unambiguous proof that im controlled by language authority despite consciously ignoring rules
otherwise even though i can see you have sincere intent, youre blowing smoke

>>16019833
>Millions spent on idiots to have access to expensive equipment.
It's about the orientation of the institution. Not the trajectory of every specific participant. I bet you can find a way to still grade it on a competency curve that can be used in part to evaluate your likelihood in being able to contribute in a work environment.

>>16019859
>guess
I wouldn’t know, but it seemed possible you were ESL, or European. If you’re not, I still wouldn’t find it important. Any guess would be contaminated with insincere preemption, such as four or five - more? Jewish and an academic? Seven? Rather pointless engagement, and still competitive.
>give an undeniable, unambiguous proof that im controlled by…
“Give an undeniable, unambiguous proof that im controlled by…”; your proof is in your pudding. But to extend a courtesy: Purposely ignoring rules is not an unconscious will that validates which rules to follow, it is merely acting. I believe you are participating in a form of deception, maybe even upon yourself, and not genuine behavior on being. I’d argue it’s a quality of ego, no one can be blamed however that displays, but the only way I can see you accept any fractal of this is if you start to reflect upon how you interact with others. Clear as day you want to treat it as a battleground - and because of this a lot of nuance is lost by not affording the patience and lenience to extract more from your “opponent”. Winning is good enough, I truly doubt you reflect too much on what anyone says to you, so long as you can feel like you’ve beaten them within fulfilled criteria. But feeling like a victor is only going to fuel a trek down the same linearity all the other failed academics and intellectuals go. Their place is nothing, because their self awareness inevitably hollows and destroys them.

Figure out why you feel sadistic about this, and try to defuse it. If you can defuse your wrath, you will be able to realize there is more to your thinking than you currently allow.

>>16019952
if you had full understanding of language as the current knowledge of it exists youd be able to have real insight but youre not saying anything i dont already know and assume im not self aware without being able to explicitly support your finding.

if i were attempting preemptive deception id still have to prove my proficiency with whatever number i claimed by translating a passage you chose into natural grammar of the languages claimed. i didnt pose it in bad faith.

>>16019960
>omniscience
Yes, but I do not pretend I do. Therefore, these approximations for better hypothetical trajectories are required. And I am letting you know that you have the capability to recognize how you limit yourself by simply regulating and deconstructing your own sadism. This is very simple to do and will aide you in answering the demands you have made throughout the discussion. You don’t need to deny this practice simply because I am telling you to do it, you also don’t have to dismiss this practice immediately because you think it’s ridiculous. In a generalized axiom, it is sadism (attachment), that drives semantic literalism. It is consistent with many competitive high functioning individuals I have run across, online and offline, and is a genuine knowledge I have found on my own time and reflection to where I have been able to personally classify it as a tangible subset of behavior and profile, which I call the literal semantic. If you want to dismiss this, or me, whether by arrival from assessment or sadism, you are free to do so. But I have given you enough at this point that you either will reflect, or will not, and my efforts have fulfilled my personal resolution. Again, it is just a warning. If I am failing to communicate to you this idea, or you are failing to grasp it, it is irrelevant. I can only infer so much about you, the rest you must explore yourself.

If I had to guess how many languages, it would be five if you are Gentile, six if you are a Jew. Again, it’s insipid, but you wish for a guess, and now you have it. As an addendum, I am not Jewish.

>>16020112
>And I am letting you know that you have the capability to recognize how you limit yourself by simply regulating and deconstructing your own sadism.
always useful because practice in what youre describing needs to be maintained.

what learning material (primarily books) would you recommend on the topic? from intro to advanced.

>>16020126
I cannot recommend any books because I do not read in the traditional way an academic or socialite might. I can understand why someone would read that way, and there are smarter people who do read plentiful and more effective than myself, but pre, I have an intense distaste for reading and those who do so without comprehending why they read in the first place. The issue is that reflective intuition is replaced with authorship and exposure; time would be better spent learning from textbooks and developing skills in yearned fields than reading philosophy or theology without applications these so by oneself. I am sure you are well read and learned, that is completely acceptable. I am sure you reflect and introspect as much as any other intellect. But why not extrapolate upon what has already been said here? Remove my authorship, our quarrel, what is there? An ambiguity, apprehension to it, and a claim about it.

If you will still insist upon something tangible, I can concede a recommendation of studying the following topics however you may. If you declare you’ve already done so previously, still reflect upon this thread and our conversation, applying the list below to semantic literalism from the context of: environment, competition, peers, accolade, automatic behavior, personal failure, personal limitation. These are not directed to you but the necessary self reflection I’ve personally gone through myself; why am I so sadistic?:

>sadism; fear; attachment; material
>will; reaction versus action
>brain anatomy; chemical distill; exploration of environmental brain trauma and damage
>competition; self magnetized limitation
>the occult

I afford an apology for failing to convince you. The only way to outcompete high functioning, literal semantics is to navigate outside how they think. Have a good night.

bump

>>16016835
the thing is you need to have a genius-level knowledge and intellect compared to people living 200 years ago just to be able to live in the society as a middle class

>>16020742
Why did you burp?

>>16020751
>.05c to your Hawaiian Punch account