Selling the Philosopher's Stone - page 9
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
monks don't write how to make money
http://knijky.ru/books/monah-kotoryy-prodal-svoy-ferrari
http://knijky.ru/books/monah-kotoryy-prodal-svoy-ferrari
It all depends on how you measure intelligence. If you think of intelligence as being measured by the amount of money you make (which is what I personally think), then you're right. But there are also alternative views on the measurement of intelligence.
It sounds very logical. But it's sad to agree with it.
It sounds very logical. But it's sad to agree with it.
And don't tell me, my soul absolutely does not want to accept this position.
But, alas, logic dictates that, as a rule, the biggest money goes to those who manage the flows of the most important goods for society. Be it energy resources, productions, minerals, power... And the usefulness of intellect from the point of view of society is to occupy the "post of regulator".
You don't have to tell me, my soul is adamantly reluctant to accept this position.
But, alas, logic suggests that, as a rule, the most money goes to those who manage the flows of the most important goods for society. Be it energy resources, production, minerals, power... And the usefulness of intelligence from the point of view of society is to occupy the 'post of regulator'.
Although, Georgy, you must have heard about Grigory Perelman from St. Petersburg. He proved Poincaré's hypothesis, which was formulated 100 years ago. He's clever, and the proof is there. And poor. At least that's comforting. : )
Then the patriarch who drives an armoured Mercedes would be better off:)))
There was a video on youtube once, where a blogger attacked a priest, asking him how he got a cool off-road car. The servant of the Lord, covering his face, meekly replied, "God gave it to me...
Although, Georgy, you must have heard about Grigory Perelman from St. Petersburg. He proved Poincaré's hypothesis, which was formulated 100 years ago. He is clever, and the proof is there. And poor. At least that's comforting. : )
Let's be clear - smart in mathematics, his brain is sharpened for it. So he lives with his mother, no wife, no kids, and I suspect no women either. So? I've read about a lot of retards who, by some miracle, could multiply gigantic numbers in their heads.
Or watched a video recently about chimpanzees. Squares of numbers 0-9 would light up on the screen for a split second and then the monkey would just instantly poke the screen, sorting the squares in ascending order. The man always lost to the monkey.
So? I've read about masses of mentally retarded people who, by some miracle, could multiply giant numbers in their heads.
Or watched a video recently about chimpanzees. Squares of numbers 0-9 would light up on the screen for a split second, and then the monkey would just instantly poke his finger across the screen, sorting the squares in ascending order. The human always lost to the monkey.
For example, a fly flies fast enough around the room and can land on both vertical and horizontal surfaces, including upside down - the fly's nerve centres, in terms of computational resources, are primitive but fast devices - the visual centres are almost directly tied to the wings . The human brain(+eyes) cannot move with such speed in the same volume(room) - a human has an average trained delay between visual stimulus and action of 0.2 seconds.
The above experiment with monkeys is not reliable because, unlike monkeys, the average human is born with a "narrowed" visual field through reading (as everyone is usually taught) and daily activities. If the field of vision of an ape is narrowed from birth, it may be that it will have a slight advantage (it is necessary to sample groups of such monkeys and such groups of humans). If human beings are trained with visual field, in this experiment/battle human ws monkey, the monkey will have a slight advantage because the delay between visual stimulus and action in the monkey is less than in humans.(Software/tests for visual field expansion - you can compare your results before training and after to understand the mechanism)
A horse can be trained to recognize up to 30 characters (humans several alphabets + 2-3 alphabets of hieroglyphs, + speak these languages, cats/dogs can do the counting), if we overcome experimental difficulties, in a similar test horse vs monkey will win the horse, with the horse being able to simultaneously classify two monitors with characters faster in contrast to humans and monkeys, due to anatomical features of vision.
So neither fly, nor horse, nor monkey is "structurally" more intelligent than human (in the best sense), faster in some tasks - yes.
Although, Georgy, you must have heard about Grigory Perelman from St. Petersburg. He proved Poincaré's hypothesis, which was formulated 100 years ago. He is clever, and the proof is there. And poor. At least that's comforting. : )
So that's what I'm saying, the rub is in assessing intelligence. Any human being, and even a land mammal, walks - and just walking on two legs over rough terrain is a daunting task. Is the ability to walk a measure of intelligence?
One may say that "intellect must stand out among others", but can we think of tightrope walkers, who clearly stand out among other people with their ability to balance on a rope, can we claim that their intellect is superior to others? After all, no one doubts that they manage the task of two-legged walking on shaky foundations much better than other people...
It is not enough to know or be able to do something... It is important that this skill or knowledge is of benefit to society. That is when it is real knowledge or skill. The same tightrope walker may demonstrate his skills to those who are interested in him, and here his skill becomes a real skill.
For this evaluation, money has been invented long ago. It is a measure of the usefulness of a person's actions from the point of view of society. And his intellect in particular.
The proof of the Poincaré theorem is one more step in the development of mathematics, and when this step will lead to a real profit for the society is unknown. Right now - this proof is completely useless.
There are other examples. Off the top of my head Miles comes to mind with his proof of Fermat's theorem. What use is that proof? Now - nothing, though, most likely, in the future it will be necessary and will form the basis of this or that theory.
As, say, E.Galois's theory, on which noise-proof coding, without which the second half of XX century and nowadays is unthinkable, is based. In other words, the profit from this theory for the society is undoubted and very big. But the moment Galois formalized his thoughts into a theory, it was not only completely useless, but many of the mathematicians of the time simply didn't understand it. Galois' "reasonableness" was therefore, from the point of view of society at the time, very dubious, although from the point of view of the present, it is unquestionable.
Even a thief who doesn't get caught is more useful in this sense than the same Perelman. Because he contributes to a more efficient storage anduse of society'sresources.
Petr Doroshenko:
Unless visual/memory function is impaired, any human brain can multiply giant numbers. An overwhelming number of people have been trained and are and will continue to be trained in primitive ways of counting. (search learn to count or something like that).
For example, a fly flies fast enough around a room and can land on both vertical and horizontal surfaces, including upside down - the fly's nerve centres, in terms of computational resources, are a primitive but fast device - the visual centres are almost directly tied to the wings. The human brain(+eyes) cannot move with such speed in the same volume(room) - a human has an average trained delay between visual stimulus and action of 0.2 seconds.
The above experiment with monkeys is not reliable because, unlike monkeys, the average human is born with a "narrowed" visual field through reading (as everyone is usually taught) and daily activities. If the field of vision of an ape is narrowed from birth, it may be that it will have a slight advantage (it is necessary to sample groups of such monkeys and such groups of humans). If human beings are trained with visual field, in this experiment/battle human ws monkey, the monkey will have a slight advantage because the delay between visual stimulus and action in the monkey is less than in humans.(Software/tests for visual field expansion - you can compare your results before training and after to understand the mechanism)
A horse can be trained to recognize up to 30 characters (humans several alphabets + 2-3 alphabets of hieroglyphs, + speak these languages, cats/dogs can do the counting), if we overcome experimental difficulties, in a similar test horse vs monkey will win the horse, with the horse being able to simultaneously classify two monitors with characters faster in contrast to humans and monkeys, due to anatomical features of vision.
I.e. neither a fly, nor a horse, nor a monkey is "structurally" more intelligent than a human (in the best sense), faster in some tasks, yes.
I wonder where you found this beautiful text from. Or did you write it yourself ?