Comments | infopractical: The Boy With The Incredible Brain -- Critiqued

infopractical

The Boy With The Incredible Brain -- Critiqued

Jan 25, 2008 23:27

Lately I've been encouraged to make more of my posts unlocked. I only do that under certain circumstances, but I feel this is an important occasion because I believe I have spotted a hoax and that I am unusually qualified to unmask it.

( The Daniel Tammet Hoax )

Comments 68

Videos rws1st January 26 2008, 09:26:13 UTC

Clearly you need to make some videos.

Really, both of you doing some calculations and of you Teaching.

aznphatso January 26 2008, 10:56:21 UTC

There was a fantastic piece in Scientific American about chess pros recognizing chess board in chunks. I'm a pretty average chess player by the community's standards, and I'm pretty confident anyone w/ a year or two of chess experience could memorize a LEGAL chess board position within 10 seconds -- random pieces would take a bit longer, but nowhere near 10 mins.

If you ever follow up on this post I would definitely like to be in the know. Very interesting, Matt!

d_l_leonine January 26 2008, 15:19:21 UTC

I typically "burn" critical positions of turnament games into my memory just in the course of studying them.

I'm always amazed at how, after a game, I can reconstruct 4 or 5 positions acurately without refering to game notation.

...but yea, I can memorize legal board positions fairly quick.

infopractical January 28 2008, 02:42:24 UTC

You're exactly right that legal positions are easier to chunk. That allows us to view the pieces in context with one another. In fact, when I saw what Daniel was doing, my first instinct was to try to divide the board up into areas where I could focus on the legality of the board. If the upper right quadrant is entirely legal, I note that from the start as I burn the position. If the upper left quadrant is not legal, part of my burn will almost surely have to do with notes on the illegality of the position.

Editorial comment from a "word guy" ... btripp January 26 2008, 15:11:54 UTC

My brain boggles at this high-level math stuff, but one thing that stood out in your post was the line: "So why is Daniel haled ..." I'm assuming that this is a simple typo that fell into that ever-more-common trap of spell-check recognition, with the obviously intended word being "hailed" (acclaimed) rather than "haled" (compelled to go).

I do find it amusing that the lack of an "i" stood out so clearly amid all the stuff that I wasn't getting (things like "3^20 = (59000 + 49)^2 = 59000^2 + 2*59000*49 + 49^2") at all!

heh ...

( ... )

Re: Editorial comment from a "word guy" ... infopractical January 26 2008, 16:16:15 UTC

Fixed.

I finished this post at about 3 in the morning. I'm surprised there aren't more typos all over it.

Re: Editorial comment from a "word guy" ... faustin January 26 2008, 19:50:47 UTC

hmm. fix "Play-Doh" -- it especially looks awful to me. Otherwise it reads like "play dew". There are still several more -- I only remember that you used "professional" when it should have been "profession," and "to" when you needed "too."

Re: Editorial comment from a "word guy" ... infopractical January 26 2008, 20:04:56 UTC

Thanks. I think I fixed all those.

blipangel January 26 2008, 17:03:33 UTC

You made a C in German. :P

infopractical January 26 2008, 19:02:37 UTC

I did not. I made a B.

yechezkiel January 26 2008, 18:29:23 UTC

IIRC, there's evidence to show that many people with synaesthesia "force" associations, that natural synaesthesia is more chaotic than how they tend to describe it from mental habit.

infopractical January 26 2008, 19:38:38 UTC

I buy that.

Here's where Daniel's story really bothers me. He is suggesting that he's not actually calculating the way we understand calculation. He's suggesting that the shapes are doing the computations.

If he said, "I'm a great human calculator, woo hoo, and I have this synaesthesia going on in my brain that makes me see shapes and color when I do it, then I'd have no problem with his story.

But then researchers probably wouldn't tout him as a "linchpin" to further research were that the case.

faustin January 26 2008, 20:11:54 UTC

Why don't you make the case that calculation cannot possibly be done any other way than through the more commonsense understanding of numbers as integers. That's the tight, rigorous argument that apparently needs to be made. It's sad enough that nobody has done this --- I'd expect it to have been done. I can almost do it myself, except I know fuck-all of math. I recall seeing this clearly when, years ago post-Rain Man, people were claiming that autistics did calculations without calculating... say 1996.

This would be a solid piece of work on the intersection of metaphysics, cognition and math, and it would nip this BS in the bud. If I can see how it can be done, you clearly are someone who should just do it.

infopractical January 26 2008, 20:21:36 UTC

For me, not getting involved is a matter of priority. I have too much going in my life as it is.

Why don't you make the case that calculation cannot possibly be done any other way than through the more commonsense understanding of numbers as integers.

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. I can certainly see physical analogies being conjured for performing computation. The integers have various algebraic and geometric properties. So it's not that I believe computation can't happen the way Daniel describes it. It's that I don't believe that's how he's doing it.

It was the highly convenient problem choice that convinced me of as much.

I also find it offensive that researchers tout him as some kind of "Rosetta Stone", as if this "shape computation" is something that's going to be taught in elementary schools a few years down the road. If that's what my tax dollars are going to fund at the Salk Institute, I want my money back.

Thread 9