People with a Different Sort of "Genius"

That's totally inaccurate. Oppenheimer gets most of the credit for the A bomb. Heck, Einstein didn't even 'discover' nuclear fission.
 
I know. I was only kidding. He was in the chain of events. I was talking about a fictitious scenario of a computer simulation.

www.discovermagazine.com

Chain Reaction: From Einstein to the Atomic Bomb

From his theoretical contributions to his influential letter to President Roosevelt, here is the real story of Einstein's indirect yet pivotal role in the atomic bomb's development.
www.discovermagazine.com www.discovermagazine.com
 
Yes, but Einstein did discover "physics" after graduating from his role as examiner at the patent office.
Let's throw another name into the mix --Richard Feynman --part time bongo drummer and thinker/communicator among other things.
 
For the record, Einstein was opposed to the use of nuclear weapons and played no part in their development
 
Oh, untruths bit was about him saying God doesn't play at dice.
 
Tony,
No, you probably read enough to form an opinion. No offense. I was just suggesting people who have some talent or genius or "something" that spanned a range for consideration as people with a different sort of "genius". There are some youtube videos on Shannon.
 
How many geniuses are out there that are consider nutcases because they come out with insights that the average person just cannot comprehend?

I am not claiming to be a genius at all, but let me give an example to illustrate the point. When I told the lady in my local coffee shop that I am stockpiling for the coming apocalypse, I got a bit of a "lets just humour him" look. I didn't actually say apocalypse, just that the exponential nature of going viral means most people will drastically underestimate the explosive growth of coronavirus. From the chart I posted about Italy, it was 917 cases of coronarivus 5 days ago. It is now 2,500 today. That is similar to my doubling every 4 days prediction.

Lets play with some maths:

Today, 4th of March: 2,500
8th: 5,000
12th: 10,000
16th: 20,000
20th: 40,000
24th: 80,000
28th: 160,000
1st April: 320,000

One month after that? 41M

What about all those geniuses out there that have insights us common folk just do not understand, and they get ostracised for their views?
 
Last edited:
Reminds me of the mythological Cassandra the Oracle, who had a gift and a curse. The gift was oracular wisdom; the curse was to never be believed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jon
Well said Doc, with a heavy emphasis on not being believed.
 
some musings.

there are savants (idiot savants)

there is also ineffableness - things we just cannot comprehend. What happens when an immovable object meets an irresistible force. It's just beyond our comprehension.

people with synaesthesia (maybe) for whom numbers are colours, and who can solve numerical problems by visualising the colour representation of the solution. Hard to comprehend.

God is ineffable.

On the other hand, let's say that space/the universe is finite. Outside of space there is nothing. I am happy with that. I can comprehend a nothingness that is outside mere emptiness. But then as computer guys should be able to manage a distinction between empty and null.
 
Can you comprehend that the sentence "outside of space" does not make sense, if there is no outside? I can't comprehend it.
 
Another poser - M$oft's use of the term macro even/especially when constrained to MS Access.
 
The term "Macro" appears in many Office elements. My though is running a macro action on a micro computer.
 
Agreed Doc, but macro has meant vba code in earlier versions as well as macros and macros continue to be confusing to newcomers and others (embedded macro, data macros, named macro...). Just expands the range of what "genius" might entail.
 
Not sure how this thread has migrated from geniuses to macros....

Anyway, another contender for unconventional genius may be Freeman Dyson who died last week.
www.theguardian.com

Freeman Dyson obituary

Brilliant theoretical physicist and mathematician whose far-fetched ideas for the future verged on the bizarre
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Here's one I devised. I posit a few assertions, but I think they are reasonable. Intelligent life will be carbon based, and DNA based. DNA is based on 4 protein DNA bases, ACGT. I actually think it will be anthropoid in general.

Now scientists advise that we share 98% of DNA with chimps, and even 50% DNA with bananas.

So this is my theory, and this is what it is (to paraphrase Monty Python). When we finally meet alien life forms, they will be carbon based, they will be DNA based, and although we will never have met before, we will share substantial amounts of DNA with them. Now that's "spooky at a distance"

I also enjoy watching Ancient Aliens, and wonder why they never mention Immanuel Velikovsky. (who surely was a genius)
 
P.E.T.A. would jump up and down if we started using primate organs instead of porcine organs. But as I understand it, there IS an issue with genetics. I can't talk about pigs, but primates don't match our DNA that well due to the fact that we have 23 chromosomes; primates have 24. Primate genes #2 and #13 fused in our branch but stayed separate in their branch. That means that our enzymes won't work the same for our primate cousins' parts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top Bottom