Is talent born or created with hard work and practice

[donkey tugger]

BTW, you guys do understand that the link Donkey Tugger provided is to a philosophical paper, not a scientific one, right? It is full of stupid assumptions and doesn't work without them. e.g. Maxwell's Demon assumes the operation of the demon requires no expenditure of energy but it must have mass so, frictionless or not, Newton says moving it will require energy to be expended.

It was merely illustrative and an example of course. The whole point of the argument in opposition flowing from Maxwell's original is that the 'demon' does need to expend energy, not just in terms of friction etc (as you point out), but in the processing of the information itself - i.e. to sort out the higher and lower energy molecules moving through the partition, and to clear the 'memory' to process further. Hence the corollary of the postulate is that information itself can be taken as a physical quantity, with 'real world' attributes.

[aMUSEd]

Yes

[donkey tugger]

...and following on, for anyone interested this is an excellent BBC World Service programme about the original concept and how arguments against it contributed to the field of information thermodynamics;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07dm8tb

[VOODOO U]

I'm interested. Thanxxkqsszzzs!

[BONES]

Hence the corollary of the postulate is that information itself can be taken as a physical quantity, with 'real world' attributes.

Yes, it's philosophy - word games - not science. "Information" isn't really a thing at all - it's an abstract concept, a descriptor created in a mind to assign to an aspect of a thing, to allow it to be discussed, dissected and acted upon. It has no existence beyond that realm.

[Michael L]

Information does have real existence-- for example, a genome contains all the information (including epigenetic) needed for an individual to develop and function, so if one inherited a greater sensitivity to musical information and then developed in an environment surrounded by that information, they might want to practice harder and would benefit more from practice than someone without that information.

[donkey tugger]

Hence the corollary of the postulate is that information itself can be taken as a physical quantity, with 'real world' attributes.

Yes, it's philosophy - word games - not science. "Information" isn't really a thing at all - it's an abstract concept, a descriptor created in a mind to assign to an aspect of a thing, to allow it to be discussed, dissected and acted upon. It has no existence beyond that realm.

Do try to keep up. Here's some reading;

https://lims.ac.uk/project/quantum-thermodynamics/

Now I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but you're going to have do do a bit better than, 'no it isn't', to to dismiss a whole field of modern physics.

[revvy]

They’re all f**king idiots!

[donkey tugger]

[VOODOO U]

In France, more young people are leastening to 80's song

Which song is it?

[jancivil]

i believe talent is made not born

The problem with this statement is it speaks of believing something, without much if any support for the belief. It struck me immediately as something someone wants to be true, so the desire is amplified to the level of believing it. I'm sorry, but there are people that have it easier, by nature.

This is the age-old nature vs nurture. In the case of [comparative] accomplishment in a field, where we wonder why some people are unable to get there we wonder about "talent"; I don't think this is a mysterious term but a concept that tends to be borne out without too much trouble. But people do not often live in a vacuum insulated from the influence of their surroundings, so in general to say there's only 'nature', ie., talent, or conversely to say there is no such thing, what explains this difference? You can deny it, but it's IME quite a reach. It has to be some combination of both. I have a not-stellar aptitude for mathematics, yet probably not a particularly low "IQ" so I have a specific ceiling here that an Einstein is not going to be hindered by. I'm not going to kid myself.

I had it easier than the average as far as a mindset for musical work, and with something we may call 'natural rhythm'. I cannot be considered very gifted or as a prodigy at all, because I had to develop a good ear. I couldn't say I'm a world beater here but over time I developed it. So I must not have the hard limitation of someone (and again you can deny this is true but experience should be more of a clue here) with a 'tin ear', but I had to learn from transcribing, and then with training with given exercises. A little bit of work at it sorted me soon enough as to not be discouraged.

I have a great example of a born talent but where it was nurtured to a point where success in music (and a particular facility) was practically guaranteed. Daryl Hall's mother said he had 'perfect' (I'll guess 'absolute') pitch, noticed at like age 3. So she (a vocal coach, and a classical and jazz musician) trained him from around then, including how to perform, things like you focus past the audience, or to look through, not at the audience. I'm basing this on a Mother's Day interview where the interviewer put to him 'So what would you say to your mother right now (re: Mother's Day in a couple days)?' And he said "Thank you for making me", and explained that she *formed* him as a musician. So here's an individual that nails something right away, that seems to know exactly what to do at once, first take as a way of life. Is it easy to be jealous of this kind of person? The thrust of "I don't believe in talent" seems a defense mechanism, and it's one I would recommend to lose, and to grow up some.

So we may believe there's a Mozart transcribing whole pieces as though automatic; at, what's the story, age 6 where he was suspected of stealing the sheet music...
but: 1) do we know this? and 2) if true, it seems almost sui generis level of talent. Amyway, as a case study or model, I don't think this is going to apply very broadly; so 3) do we believe he got to be the composer he became needing no particular training? There's as much evidence he underwent training - the usual, the story isn't going to vary much for that generation - as there is of a musical prodigy... All roads appear to lead to *it's a combination of nature and nurture*.

[jancivil]

Hence the corollary of the postulate is that information itself can be taken as a physical quantity, with 'real world' attributes.

Yes, it's philosophy - word games - not science. "Information" isn't really a thing at all

It's easier to believe some shit, and to automatically deny a concept not apprehended, but to make that case you'll have to actually study it, which will disabuse one of such a notion.

[BONES]

No, it won't. The further into it you look, the more obvious it is that it's a ridiculous notion.

[donkey tugger]

No, it won't. The further into it you look, the more obvious it is that it's a ridiculous notion.

personalincredulity.jpg

Care to explain your reasoning? "It's obvious", isn't generally taken in science as an evidential basis for a conclusion.

[FranklyFlawless]

Talent is normally associated with an inate gift. Hard work and practice is refining what inate talent you may or may not have into something greater; it is an equalizer.