Maybe Someday...

[mcnoone]

mcnoone are you sure you're not mixing up "knowing" with "understanding"?

Whatever the questions. It will require science to find out.
Given enough time and effort. Neurosciences, and biology bring us closer to knowing, and understanding than any other investigative method concerning the brain.
It needs to be repeated.
Talent, if there is such a thing, comes from many factors that include ones brain, biological makeup, dna, and cultural position. The ability to work at something requires certain aspects of all of the above too.
If there is anything to understand and know about the brain/mind, it will found through science. That's the only thing that needs to be acknowledged here, as no other method can do such a thing.

[mcnoone]

There is still so much to understand about how the brain functions, scientists and doctors (not science) are studying this constantly with still many questions unanswered. New information is discovered often making previous scientific observations obsolete due to advanced technology, but there is still a long ways to go. Suggesting this as BertKoor did is far from giving up on science, it's really more respecting the work of scientists and the work they still have to do.

I didn't say there wasn't more to learn. I was simply stating that they know and understand a lot more than "guessing". In fact, the respective sciences know and understand a hell of a lot more than mere guessing.
Particularly in the last decade. Yes there is a lot more to learn, yet we've learned a lot that goes way beyond just guessing.

[Numanoid]

yet we've learned a lot that goes way beyond just guessing.

but still nobody got any clue about gravity, except that it attracts

[Hink]

There is still so much to understand about how the brain functions, scientists and doctors (not science) are studying this constantly with still many questions unanswered. New information is discovered often making previous scientific observations obsolete due to advanced technology, but there is still a long ways to go. Suggesting this as BertKoor did is far from giving up on science, it's really more respecting the work of scientists and the work they still have to do.

I didn't say there wasn't more to learn. I was simply stating that they know and understand a lot more than "guessing". In fact, the respective sciences know and understand a hell of a lot more than mere guessing.
Particularly in the last decade. Yes there is a lot more to learn, yet we've learned a lot that goes way beyond just guessing.

you left out the part where you declared he would clearly give up on science for which there is absolutely no evidence of and well...merely guessing

[mcnoone]

yet we've learned a lot that goes way beyond just guessing.

but still nobody got any clue about gravity, except that it attracts

You are incorrect, and it is very unintelligent of you to make such a statement.

Much more is known about gravity than "it attracts".
In fact, it dictates the way you look. The surface of the earth, and everything else you see in this universe.
Yet...we also know that it is an effect of mass/energy, and there is much more that is known about it.
So much for your "nobody got a clue" assumption.

[mod edit]this is not HPC, please keep it civil[/mod edit]

[mcnoone]

There is still so much to understand about how the brain functions, scientists and doctors (not science) are studying this constantly with still many questions unanswered. New information is discovered often making previous scientific observations obsolete due to advanced technology, but there is still a long ways to go. Suggesting this as BertKoor did is far from giving up on science, it's really more respecting the work of scientists and the work they still have to do.

I didn't say there wasn't more to learn. I was simply stating that they know and understand a lot more than "guessing". In fact, the respective sciences know and understand a hell of a lot more than mere guessing.
Particularly in the last decade. Yes there is a lot more to learn, yet we've learned a lot that goes way beyond just guessing.

you left out the part where you declared he would clearly give up on science for which there is absolutely no evidence of and well...merely guessing

Because...saying that a guess is as good as what is known through science, is giving up on science.
It is stating that "oh well, science doesn't know, so it is equal to guessing" ie; worthless.
That is a give up idea expressed.

[Hink]

There is still so much to understand about how the brain functions, scientists and doctors (not science) are studying this constantly with still many questions unanswered. New information is discovered often making previous scientific observations obsolete due to advanced technology, but there is still a long ways to go. Suggesting this as BertKoor did is far from giving up on science, it's really more respecting the work of scientists and the work they still have to do.

I didn't say there wasn't more to learn. I was simply stating that they know and understand a lot more than "guessing". In fact, the respective sciences know and understand a hell of a lot more than mere guessing.
Particularly in the last decade. Yes there is a lot more to learn, yet we've learned a lot that goes way beyond just guessing.

you left out the part where you declared he would clearly give up on science for which there is absolutely no evidence of and well...merely guessing

Because...saying that a guess is as good as what is known through science, is giving up on science.
It is stating that "oh well, science doesn't know, so it is equal to guessing" ie; worthless.
That is a give up idea expressed.

if a hypothesis is an educated guess than how does the equate to giving up an expressed idea? What exact field of scientific study is your degree in or your area of expertise?

ftr I am not a scientist, never laid claim to being one

[goldenanalog]

[mcnoone]

if a hypothesis is an educated guess than how does the equate to giving up an expressed idea?

There was no mention of an educated guess then. Educated would require the hypothesis to be based on already known information too.
The "guessing" mentioned no such link to that. So your additional wording is simply a distorting of the argument to continue it toward some place that it was not originally at. Deception ploy noted.
Also the original idea expressed was a "knowing of nothing" and "any guess is as good as any other".
You are trying to change it into something it was not originally stated as.

What exact field of scientific study is your degree in or your area of expertise?

No person needs a degree in anything in order to learn and study on any given subject using the library, and actually doing the work in said subject.
I have decades of study in many fields of science that I freely pursued due to interest.
I would say, that what I learned might even exceed some degree holders in specific fields, where they only narrowly stayed within one field, and didn't study any others.

Besides, there is plenty of scientific knowledge regarding the brain. It isn't just guessing. Which was my original argument. There is plenty of scientific knowledge in neuroscience and biology that can explain and understand much more than guessing. No one needs a degree in any science to learn about this available on the net information.

[mcnoone]

Honestly, science is completely in the dark when it comes to factual knowledge of how the brain actually works.

Make a note Hink.
This is incorrect.
If science doesn't know something about some specific thing.
Neither does anyone else using any other method.
Yet apparently we would need to ignore the advances in brain to brain machines, and brain to machine technologies. We would have to ignore the countless other advances made in the fields of neuroscience and biology that have exceeded our previous knowledge of how the brain works.
Saying there are limits to the scientific knowledge at this time is understandable.
Claiming that there is no scientific knowledge on the subject, (ie; completely in the dark) and that anyone's guess is as good as any others, is incorrect, regardless of who stated so.

[mcnoone]

if a hypothesis is an educated guess than how does the equate to giving up an expressed idea?

Not to mention, that if you read what a scientific hypothesis is. You will find that it is more than just an educated guess. It has requirements that go way beyond that.
http://www.livescience.com/21490-what-i ... hesis.html

[Hink]

and many people including yourself embellish or overgeneralize on the internet with such statements. Splitting hairs from common expressions used in speech and taking things as literal as you did probably is better suited for discussions at places more suitable for these discussions, ie not music forums, perhaps science forums, university lecture halls. I find BertKoor to be very intelligent, his help with electronic knowledge especially when applied to what we do here has been very helpful for many and tbh I would not just dismiss his input on many matters. He explains things in a very understandable and non-condescending manner, which I for one have appreciated over the years and have learned from which is greatly appreciated and imho what KvR is really about.

While your point is well taken in a literal sense, in a practical sense I understand exactly what he is saying and realize that his choice of words are not meant to be taken as literal as you have taken them. We all agree there is a lot more to learn about the brain and how it functions, done. You reduced his posts to state he would give up on science, again I dont see the connection and you have not shown any reason to believe he would give up on science. I notice that such statements tend to ruffle feathers and lead to more heated arguments, I think you should keep this type of arguing in HPC. You probably have a good start to an objective thread about the brain, how it functions and how much we know about it and such, so why not start a thread there instead?

This thread is clearly about speculation, guessing and subjectivity.

[harryupbabble]

Self correction:

Bobby Fischer's mother was not a physicist but a physician. She studied medicine in Russia. She was qualified to be a doctor but in America her doctor credential did not count. She eventually did become a physician there in America though. She was obviously interested in physics. Both of her husbands were physicists. But maybe female physicists at the time was not the norm and she just settled for physician?

Rehash:

Is it absurd to guess that she wanted Bobby to be a physicist? His biological father (a physicist) and his stepfather (a Nobel prize winner physicist) probably did too. Bobby Fischer might have wasted his life on playing chess only because his parents weren't convincing enough in wanting him to be a physicist?

An accurate aptitude brain scan result might have persuaded a young Bobby Fischer to try to be a physicist? A chess brain like Bobby Fischer's is built to handle the complexities of quantum physics? And who knows, Bobby could have enjoyed being a physicist as much as being a chess player? He could have been the next Einstein? It might be possible someday using brain scan to know for sure what other (scientific or whatever) fields Bobby Fischer's mind could have been suited for? And everybody else's minds too, including musician's and songwriter's brains? And is that so bad? Or is that so good?

[realmarco]

unlikely to bepossible one would have to recognize the exact meaning of the brains circuits.

how do u quantify pitch speed and harmony of your brain going *fizz fizz blurp*

[harryupbabble]

Okay, I guess some people don't think such brain scans will become reality. And some don't want it to become reality? Why not? If it becomes reality, would most people use it? Why wouldn't they. Don't people want advanced knowledge of, for example, whether they will get cancer? So they can do something about it before it's too late? Don't people want advanced knowledge of, say, bad/good weather coming their way? Hurricane preparations. Technology used there. What about that cliche... knowledge is power?

Why would people not want even just the option to know in advance what their potentials are. If they don't like the idea they can just not do the brain scans. Just like people now can decide not to take IQ tests? And even now, people have the right to not disclose their IQ test results. Beside being possibly more accurate, how would advanced brain scans for aptitude (if it becomes available in the future) be so different from IQ tests? It's not like the world fell apart when IQ tests became the norm. What kind of damage did it do? What good did it do?

Which is more tragic:
tragedy #1. Finding out early in life via accurate brain scan that one doesn't have great potential at anything.
tragedy #2. Finding out late in life via great effort and perspiration that one overestimated one's capabilities (same as delusional?)

Possible reactions to:
tragedy #1. That's that. I'm done dreaming, I'm just going to live the rest of my still young life and try to be happy some other way.
tragedy #2. Aarrghh.

Which is more satisfying:
#1. Finding out early in life via accurate brain scan that one does have great potential at many things.
#2. Finding out late in life via great effort and perspiration that one succeeded at one's "thing" because brain scan indicated so.