|
|
Truespace 7.6 price?
About Truespace Archives
These pages are a copy of the official truespace forums prior to their removal somewhere around 2011.
They are retained here for archive purposes only.
Truespace 7.6 price? // Roundtable
Post by jamesmc // Jul 15, 2008, 1:36am
|
jamesmc
Total Posts: 2566
|
"We are always more anxious to be distinguished for a talent which we do not possess, than to be praised for the fifteen which we do possess."
- Mark Twain |
Post by Steinie // Jul 15, 2008, 1:42am
|
Steinie
Total Posts: 3667
|
The question was already (not) answered...
Unfortunately I can't give you the pricing just yet, as we wait until release is absolutely imminent before discussing those details.
HTH!
Tom
I guess we just flowed with the topics. I have a "Talent" for changing the subject. |
Post by Jack Edwards // Jul 15, 2008, 1:58am
|
Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
|
LOL priceless, James! :D
I had this whole long response I was preparing, but I don't think I can beat that. :cool:
Well how about an analogy since artsy guys like analogies:
Let's take the tortoise and the hare. The only way the tortoise wins is because, the hare needs his nicotine fix so stops for a smoke break, then when that wears off he needs his coffee break, then when that wears off, he decides he's already put in enough work for the day and screw it, he's taking off early. So he goes home. :p
The reason you got use out of my Organics course is not because I'm a hare and you're a tortoise, it's because unlike Prodigy, you and I are both tortoises. That allows me to teach the things that helped me improve. ;) With Prodigy, you show him a few quick examples and he's off to the races. :D
Now I do have to admit, Wizard, you're definitely a hare when it comes to dissertation and thought. It would take an awful lot of brain reprogramming strategery to get me up to your level of though, debate, and oratory. :p
Such being the case and having used my superior teaching talent to sway the lesser educated masses, I must admit defeat and cede the floor. :D (BTW, I'm told by those I live with, that I have a talent for being an ass as well... ;)) |
Post by W!ZARD // Jul 15, 2008, 2:04am
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
Ah, see, now there is this difference. I just do it - no special way. It just makes sense and I can't tell you why. Both my brothers are poor at maths and they were educated in exactly the same way in the same school.
Another example of this is my boss. He can read mathematical equations like a musician can read music. He takes one look and knows exactly what it says.
Some people are just naturally gifted in this respect and it's not something that can really be taught.
Chuckle - you say that you just do it - no special way. But the whole point is that your way of doing it IS special. Why? Because it works better than my way. It's also unique to you. To move from the start of a maths problem to a successful end, your brain - or perhaps more accurately, your mind, - has to 'do' something - it has to process information. The fact that you have an aptitude or 'talent' for maths and I don't indicates that the way you process math problems is more efficient than mine. Imagine two people with the same math problem - one is skilled at mentally counting on fingers and toes - the other is skilled at mentally visualising the operation of an abacus. Both methods work fine for simple sums but the person who has learned to visualise the operations of an abacus will be far more adept at more complex mathematics and thus appear to be more "talented".
There has been lots of research into exactly these types of questions - what do mathematical prodigies and savants do in their minds that less able mathematicians have to write out longhand?
"It just makes sense and I can't tell you why". A skilled NLP practitioner would be able to find out by asking you a specifically focused series of questions which would allow him to elicit the math strategies that you use.
"Both my brothers are poor at maths and they were educated in exactly the same way in the same school." Only superficially. If three different people do the same math problem the same way they will get the same result. 1+1 does not =3. Your brothers were no doubt subjected to the same teaching techniques that you were however this does not mean all three of you had the same internal experience. Visualise you and your brothers sitting in a row in a maths class. Imagine your reactions to what you are being taught - compare this to the reactions of your brothers. Of the three Brothers (X,Y and Z?) one will be more actively engaged in the learning process, one will be more distracted than the others, one will be more bored and so on. At the end of class who has enjoyed the session more? Who learned more? Who understood the principles best?
Now imagine the same class the same 3 Brothers but all 3 are showing equal interest, equal fascination, equal engagement with the subject. Most importantly, imagine the 3 Bro's having the same emotional connection to the material. At the end of this class it will be much harder to discern who is the better mathematician.
We live in a causal universe - cause precedes effect. Therefore there is a cause for the phenomenon we see as one person 'having more talent' than another.
Imagine 2 otherwise similar people being asked a tricky question - The first says "I don't know the answer but I am sure I can find out". The second says "I don't know the answer, this question is way too hard for me". Which one of these guys would you employ? Attitude - and specifically a 'can do' attitude will always trump any innate 'talent' someone may have.
"Some people are just naturally gifted in this respect and it's not something that can really be taught". Really? Are you sure about this? So how did the supposedly 'naturally gifted' person learn to do it? Originally, the "naturally gifted' guy and the 'talentless' guy were both children, babies unable to walk, talk or do anything. Somewhere along the line the gifted guy learned something more effective than the non-gifted guy - just as Jack learned organic modeling in trueSpace more effectively than I did.
If the non-gifted guy does the same thing as the gifted guy he will get the same results. If I model an angler fish exactly the same way that Jack models one who could tell which fish was originally made by him or me?
Sorry, but 'Talent' really is an illusion that hides variations in the relative efficiency of peoples internal mental processes. |
Post by jamesmc // Jul 15, 2008, 2:06am
|
jamesmc
Total Posts: 2566
|
LOL priceless, James! :D
Such being the case and having used my superior teaching talent to sway the lesser educated masses, I must admit defeat and cede the floor. :D (BTW, I'm told by those I live with, that I have a talent for being an ass as well... ;))
You'll be needing this then. :cool:
http://forums1.caligari.com/truespace/showpost.php?p=53976&postcount=8 |
Post by Steinie // Jul 15, 2008, 2:17am
|
Steinie
Total Posts: 3667
|
Wizard "If the non-gifted guy does the same thing as the gifted guy he will get the same results. If I model an angler fish exactly the same way that Jack models one who could tell which fish was originally made by him or me?"
But they wouldn't do the same thing. The gifted person would do something the average person wouldn't dream of. There is the difference. Your assuming the average person and the talented person keep doing the same things.
Edit: You could call it "Style" |
Post by TomG // Jul 15, 2008, 2:24am
|
TomG
Total Posts: 3397
|
"Sorry, but 'Talent' really is an illusion that hides variations in the relative efficiency of peoples internal mental processes. "
Must disagree. Your forger analogy was right, the forger could copy the Mona Lisa - the issue is, could he think of, design, plan, come up with and then execute a new painting with the impact and beauty of the Mona Lisa.
Odd how the best forgers do not make great new art of their own. Like you say they copy the efficiency of the process, but that is not the same as copying the creativity, the imagination.
I would say you may be right as regards copying the physical processes, or even specific mental processes for something like math. But will they then learn the creativity of the artist, or the imagination of the mathematician who can think up how one proof, theorem or area can combine with another and come up with something entirely new?
Sure we can all learn physics, and learn to be great with the equations, but that won't make us all an Isaac Newton, Feynman or Hawking. There is a creative and imaginative part involved even in things like math.
You can learn to play the guitar, learn the best strategies, learn to clone another player's pieces, but not learn to be a musician, not learn to create new things like they do, and indeed not develop a style of your own. It's all the same notes, and the same instruments, it's all the same processes, but I can tell David Gilmour from Eric Clapton from Stevie Ray Vaughan in just a few notes. It's not their raw skill, their efficiency, that makes them great guitarists, its their heart and their personality, and I don't think all people can achieve greateness because greatness is more than the sum of the parts, more than the efficiency of the process, more than just "how good you are" in a practical sense, but a "how good you are" in an aesthetic sense (and most importantly actually "inventing" that aesthetics, not simply cloning what someone else already came up with).
And yep, I've read about NLP many decades ago :) Interesting, but not I think an answer to everything, and in claiming all of us can do everything equally if we just adopted the same strategies because we are all computers, is missing out on some of the beauty and wonder of people and individuality.
BTW, is a Cray any better at things than your desktop? If I use the same strategies on your desktop computer as used on the Cray, will your desktop be as good as the Cray? Never, because the supercomputer will always be faster, and so always "better". So even in the computer world, some things are just "made differently" ;)
HTH!
Tom |
Post by frootee // Jul 15, 2008, 2:30am
|
frootee
Total Posts: 2667
|
Ooooh My Head! :D
Very interesting conversation; I'll try to read all of it later when I have time. :D |
Post by transient // Jul 15, 2008, 2:47am
|
transient
Total Posts: 977
|
Odd how the best forgers do not make great new art of their own.
Michelangelo was an excellent art forger...... okay I'm done.
Back to reprogramming my brain ("you are just as good looking as Brad Pitt, don't believe the naysayers.........You are just as good looking as.......) |
Post by transient // Jul 15, 2008, 2:48am
|
transient
Total Posts: 977
|
[Double post - lousy brain] |
Post by W!ZARD // Jul 15, 2008, 2:51am
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
L
Well how about an analogy since artsy guys like analogies:
Let's take the tortoise and the hare. The only way the tortoise wins is because, the hare needs his nicotine fix so stops for a smoke break, then when that wears off he needs his coffee break, then when that wears off, he decides he's already put in enough work for the day and screw it, he's taking off early. So he goes home. :p
LOL - So the tortoise has a more efficient race winning strategy than the hare!! Dispite the fact the hare is obviously a far faster runner. This is a classic NLP story - slow and steady wins the race! Now if the hare learned to use the tortoises strategy the story would have a much different outcome!!
"Now I do have to admit, Wizard, you're definitely a hare when it comes to dissertation and thought." What, racing off here and there for a ciggy break? LOL, not anymore Jack - I'm a definite tortoise these days. I must confess that I am quite an avid student of Neuro Linguistics having attended various courses and studied the subject on and off for longer than I've studied 3d art - it's a pet subject subject of mine, as you may have guessed.
Added to this is the fact that I've taught dozens of people to play guitar, over half of which started out by saying they had no talent until I was able to teach them otherwise. I've also seen too many people give up a cherished dream because they bought into the myth of talent or the lack there-of.
"I'm told by those I live with, that I have a talent for being an ass as well..."LOL - I get that a lot myself only more often than not they say I'm talented at being a smartass!;)
@Jamesmc - I'll see your quote and raise you two more;) :
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence is not an act, but a habit." -- Aristotle
"Our greatest fear is not that we are inadequate but that we are powerful beyond measure" --Nelson Mandela.
and finally, "Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life." ;)-Terry Pratchett
" |
Post by jamesmc // Jul 15, 2008, 3:15am
|
jamesmc
Total Posts: 2566
|
Dam, had it wrong all these years.
I thought it was a story about the "tortoise and the hore."
Come to think about it, "tortoise and the hare" does make more sense.
Go figure. |
Post by W!ZARD // Jul 15, 2008, 3:48am
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
Aaarhg I'm going to get hung for thread poaching soon - plus none of the talented guys will be inviting me to their barbecues!!
@TomG - appreciate your thoughts here Tom - Re "Like you say they copy the efficiency of the process, but that is not the same as copying the creativity, the imagination."Umm, why not? Creativity by definition must be a process, the creation of things, even imaginary things is a function of destruction and synthesis. Even (or perhaps especially) when it occurs in the imagination.
If a forger can copy the physical and mental skills of another can he not then apply what he's learned to his own creativity? You can learn to copy the recipe of a master chef, you can learn to copy the meditation strategies of a master yogi. In fact you can learn to pretty much copy anything that someone else has already done - this is exactly how children learn from their parents after all.
A process, any process, can be simulated to some degree or another - thats what 3d apps are all about.
To be able to create the original image of the Mona Lisa Leonardo needed both technical painting ability and the knowledge of portraiture and a model and the imagination to see how to translate the thing he saw from his visual cortex into patterns of pigment. Anyone capable of exercising the same processes that Leonardo did could therefore produce an artwork of equal merit to the Mona Lisa. It's just a more complex way of making a cake by following a recipe.
Tom you have mentioned names of some great minds - people commonly held to be geniuses. But anyone studying the history of scientific and cultural advance soon learns that genius does not occur spontaneously in a vacuum. Newton, Feynman Hawking and many others were at the forefront of historical evolutionary periods in our understanding of the universe. Newtons theories for example were published at a time when a great many other distinguished minds were gaining insights into previously unexplored strategies for understanding the world.
There is a common commodity amongst geniuses of all kinds - the ability to synthesize. Taking attributes of one field of thought and combining it in new ways to other fields of thought.
You mention Dave Gilmour and Eric Clapton - both geniuses in their own right with their own style - but if I play the same sequence of notes they do I make the same sounds. So the process of performance can be copied much as the Mona Lisa can be forged. But look at Clapton - from a poor family, with poor education living at a time when Hendrix had just overdriven the first valve amps and had bought American Negro Blues to Britain. Clapton took that Blues influence and combined it in new ways with new ways of playing the guitar. Clapton, like all true geniuses, acted as a bridge between two or more previously seperate processes and combined them in a new way. Remember also that Claptons genius was directly affected by potent new mind altering drugs previously unavailable.
Look at any innovator in any field - the fundamental principles of the process are the same in every case - two (or sometimes more) existing processes get combined in a new way that no-one else had yet had the opportunity to think of.
This is also why so much musical evolution has been driven by couples - Lennon and Mcartney, Page and Plant, Simon and Garfunkel, Taupin and John. The new style, or new process or new way of understanding came about from the synthesis of two previously existing approaches.
Lastly, the comparison between the Cray and my humble desktop does not hold up. This comparison addresses the hardware, the physical mechanism rather than the process. Yes a piece of efficient code that can run on my humble PC will run far faster on a Cray - but a piece of inefficient code will still be inefficient no matter how fast you run it.
Remember I'm talking about Neuro Linguistic Programming not Neuro Linguistic Computers. I'm talking about process not processors. I'm talking about effectiveness of strategies not about the objects carrying out the strategies.
Whew! I'm off to bed! G'night all.
@ Transient - Hey Dude, looking good man! |
Post by TomG // Jul 15, 2008, 4:10am
|
TomG
Total Posts: 3397
|
And that's what I think can't be taught - how to synthesise the existing into something new and exciting. There is where I think there is innate ability, or not.
You can copy the notes, you can copy the math processes, you can copy the paintstrokes, and learn how to do those mechanically as well as the others. But you can't learn a process for imagination, flair and creativity - you can't learn how to synthesize into something new and valuable.
Otherwise there would be classes in imagination :) You can learn how to use words, but still not write a great book. You can learn to copy a recipe, but not how to make a brand new one with new flavors like a master chef. I think some things just can't be learned, and you either have it, or you don't (or at least have a different amount of it), and that creativity and ability to synthesize ideas is exactly what I think can't be broken down into a process to be learned by others.
If it were not the case, then every would-be musician would be a Gilmour or Clapton, every restaurant would be equal with master chefs no matter how humble the restaurant, every author would be writing epics that will endure for hundreds of years, and every scientist would be pouring out great new ideas constantly. All those people WANT to be masters, but few are, and they are eager to learn, yet still don't actually learn - because some things can't be learned.
All mechanical parts / processes / actions to a skill can be learned, but the imagination, flair etc cannot. The point with the notes btw is you can play the same notes, but you won't sound just like the other great guitarists, because they add something more than just a slavish ability or mechanical skill.
Take also idiot savant, stunningly good at executing strategies that do the most complex things, in math say. The cost of this ability? That they can't think of anything new, they can't synthesize - by becoming so great at the mechanical, they sacrifice the ability to problem solve and have imagination.
Or take synaesthesia (sp?) where people "see" or "taste" sound. Can someone learn to do this? Not at all - your brain is either wired for it, or it is not. Clearly this changes your perception of the world, and so how you think and act, setting you apart in a hard-wiring unlearnable way from those who don't have the same hardwiring.
I am not alarmed to think I'll never be a Da Vinci or Hendrix or Einstein, I do not need to feel that I have within me the capability to do or be anything, I find it rather comforting to be unique and different and able to bring something to the world that no-one else could, even if that is just something humble and small :)
So, for some things, learning and executing strategies is great - I will always hold though that imagination and creativity is not just a set of processes and strategies that can be quantified, written out, memorized then executed, but something in the way your brain is wired :) I love aesthetics btw, was my best subject in philosophy at Uni as it happens :)
HTH!
Tom
EDIT - PS yep I knew this is NLP, not computing (Frogs Into Princes was one of the books I read on it, as a for instance). I mention the computers and comparing hardware, because the point is that you can run the same process on a different piece of hardware and get different results. My assertion is the same process in a different brain will yield a different result, just as the same process on a different computer would. In fact more so, as I believe brains have a more fundamental difference - in the end its not just the process, but what they do with that process, for a brain. I've known guitarists technically great, but devoid of soul. And many famous guitarists are not that technically great, yet full of soul. So I still hold there is more to it all, and that some of it is hardwired. |
Post by W!ZARD // Jul 15, 2008, 6:58am
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
Fair enough Tom. To be honest I suspect that the 'truth' lies somewhere between your view and mine.
Personally, I value the idea that creativity can be taught. Firstly, because I have learned much of my own creativity from watching and learning from others.
Secondly, and perhaps most importantly I find the belief that I can learn to be as creative as say, Parva or Madmouse (by emulating their successful strategies) to be empowering. If I didn't think that I could get as good as those guys (should I put in enough effort of course) I'd be tempted just to give up right now. But those guys can do it which proves it can be done.
You say "Otherwise there would be classes in imagination" - But there are - countless different types of them ranging from Transcendental Meditation to Hypnotic regression (two particularly effective methods for enhancing an individuals creative potential) to Life Drawing Classes - which train the eye to see 3d shapes and 'imagine' them as 2d shapes - to childhood development programs like Brain Gym and so on. Check out the works of Edward De Bono who 'invented' the idea of Lateral Thinking (amongst other enhanced thinking and creativity skills). I'd challenge you (anyone) to read just one of his books and not feel vastly more creative than you did before hand - regardless of any possible pre-existing propensity for creativity.
Anyone who has ever done any Theatrical Training whatsoever has had creativity enhancing lessons imparted to them whether they realise it or not. Improvisational Theatre skills (such as those used on "Whose Line is it anyway) and especially 'PlayBack Theatre' skills training is for the most part, learning strategies that facilitate creativity. That's what they do at Julliard.
The idea that creativity and imagination are attributes that are genetically endowed (or even God-given), and that these things cannot be taught and learned, is disproved every single day whenever someone is taught a new visualisation technique, a new relaxation method or even something as simple as learning the rules of 3rds when composing a photograph or understanding perspective and parallax in landscape art.
Your musical theory is also dubious I think- an e minor chord is an e minor chord, regardless of whether it's played by Jimi Hendrix or Joe Blogs. Music is about pitch change over time - if you produce a pitch change over time and I duplicate that process the same sound will be heard. The entire body of science is built on the premise that if something is true it is repeatable.
The 'soul' or 'feel' or 'spirit' or 'mood' of a piece of music is as much about the way it is heard as it is about the way it is played. I love David Gilmours Guitar - Eric Claptons I only admire - for you it may be the other way around. The difference is internal to you and I and is dependent on the WAY we listen to the sounds - the internal process with which I listen to Pink Floyd is qualitatively and quantitatively different to the way I listen to Clapton. We say that music speaks to us but if it says different things to different people - who after all are all hearing exactly the same modulations of frequency - then this clearly indicates that different folk hear the same music differently - which means that the way those folk process those sounds internally involves the exercise of different internal processes.
The reason that "every would-be musician" is not a Gilmour or Clapton is because Gilmour and Claptons life experiences and therefore their internal mental strategies are unique. You and I both use trueSpace - use the same program in much the same way but we produce very different results. We both use the same process to assign a texture to a mesh or to manipulate a vertex but the individuality comes about from the way those processes are stacked up - the Meta-process, but that's a whole different thing.
I note with interest you mention Aesthetics and studying the subject at Uni - Do you not think that the study of Aesthetics has given you a greater understanding of aesthetic principles than you had prior to Uni? Does not your understanding of aesthetics affect your creative ability when composing a picture like the War Mages Room? Would that picture have turned out so well if you hadn't studied Aesthetics?
If your study of Aesthetics has in anyway improved your creative ability then doesn't that constitute a "class in imagination"?:D
You say "I am not alarmed to think I'll never be a Da Vinci or Hendrix or Einstein," - of course not. Why would you want to be someone you're not? BUT.... don't you think it could be empowering to think that you could learn to be a Thomas Grimes who is as skilled and creative (what we call 'talented') as Da Vinci etc? Try saying to yourself - I'll never be as good as Da Vinci. Now try saying, I could learn to be as good as Da Vinci (in my own way) - now which of those two sentences most inspires you to fire up trueSpace and create a new TomG original masterpiece?
If you can do this exercise and and feel more motivated to create after the second sentence than you were after the first - well congratulations you've just had a class in imagination!!;)
If you want another class in developing imagination and skills then check out Zachary's "Rendering Emotions" course available from Caligari.com. ;)
And now (4:51 AM local time) I'm definitely going to bed.:D
. |
Post by TomG // Jul 15, 2008, 7:52am
|
TomG
Total Posts: 3397
|
Muahaha get some sleep! :)
Aye, De Bono is interesting - my major at Uni was Psychology, so again an area I'm familiar with :)
I do think creativity can be enhanced and exercised and improved, just as muscles can. But I do think some people are pre-disposed to do better -they can either grow faster, or have a higher or lower ceiling in growth. Again brain power similar to body power - all physiques can exercise to grow better at lifting weights or grow better at running fast, but different physiques will be pre-disposed to one, the other, both, or none, both in terms of how quickly the skills can be acquired and how far one can go with them.
So there is no cause for despair, and no cause to just give up, indeed! You can learn and improve, we both agree. I do feel different people will have inbuilt rates and maximums for how much they can grow and improve in certain areas. But that's me and my belief :)
I've always been inately bad at languages, face recognition, remembering peoples names, remembering which scientist came up with which theory on which date (Im more interested and have an affinity with the thought they came up with, not when and who, which seems irrelevant to me in my concept of knowledge, just the way my brain works), drawing in 2D.
I'm inately good at math, formula, spatial processing, debating (or arguing haha), being diplomatic, writing.
I'm ok at music and 3D art, though they are mostly tied to math / formula aspect, so both are less fluid and less improvisational and more mechanical and planned out than some artists, but that's me and my style and way of thinking / processing the world :)
So I do see tendencies and abilities in myself, not ones that arise from life experience either, but ones that I believe arise from how I am wired on the inside.
Anyway, sorry for the ramble, just good to have a discussion to keep the mind fresh with different stuff. People, art, how we think, etc, are my main fascination so I tend to get a bit enthused about it all!
Tom |
Post by frootee // Jul 15, 2008, 8:37am
|
frootee
Total Posts: 2667
|
...and that's the price of truespace 7.6! :D |
Post by b_scotty // Jul 15, 2008, 11:45am
|
b_scotty
Total Posts: 176
|
frootee-- ROTFL!! |
Post by W!ZARD // Jul 15, 2008, 6:28pm
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
I do think creativity can be enhanced and exercised and improved, just as muscles can. But I do think some people are pre-disposed to do better -they can either grow faster, or have a higher or lower ceiling in growth.Absolutely! It all depends on how we cut the cake.:D
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything or change anyones mind - I'm just offering a different way to look at things.:)
When we really look into 'Talent' we can see it's not just something we are born with. I see the word 'Talent' as a shorthand expression for a human characteristic that has a threefold nature. Firstly there are the learnable strategies that allow any human activity to take place (which are relatively universal), then there are the physical characteristics which are specific to the individual - physiology and so forth and lastly, an aspect we've not yet mentioned is the 'ecology'.
A strategic universal process, carried out via specific physiology can be a good thing to do in some circumstances but not in others. This means that the surrounding environment or Ecology is very important.
A strategic universal process, for example breathing, is something we can all do. Some of us are better at it than others - an Opera Singer will have trained his breathing techniques to a far higher degree than your average couch potato.
The specific physiology also is important - an opera singer with big lungs will have better breathing than one with small lungs.
But the best trained person with the best natural attributes must still be aware of the ecology - the Worlds most highly trained breather with the greatest lungs still needs to remember to NOT breathe when his head is under water!
The most 'talented' person in any field is the one with the knowledge of the best processes combined with the best physiological advantages applied in the manner most appropriate to the requirements of the situation at hand. |
Post by W!ZARD // Jul 15, 2008, 7:33pm
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
I've always been inately bad at ....
I'm inately good at ...... Tom
Chuckle! I know that feeling!!
It can be interesting to look at these sorts of statements a bit more closely. I can truthfully say I've always been inately good at English. An NLP practitioner would respond by saying - compared to what? Compared to someone brought up in Mongolia having heard almost no English? Compared to the kids I went to school with? Compared to William Shakespeare or Sir Francis Bacon?
This question, "compared to what?" is very revealing. It shows that my level of competency is not innate (ie something I was born with). It shows that my level of competency only has meaning when compared with another level of competency. My competency at English when I was born was zero - I learned to speak, read and write English well after birth. My level of competency is now far higher than it was when I was 5.
Furthermore, I grew up with a father who worked in the Newspaper industry, in a house where both my parents were often reading. To me it seemed perfectly natural to read. Later of course we got a TV - thus my younger brother, raised by the same family was not so motivated to read as it was a behaviour that was not modeled as much for him as for me.
At junior school I spent my lunch break reading while my peers were chasing rugby balls - by the time the end of year English tests were handed out I had far more experience at English than the other kids and it showed in the test results.
I believe my abilities at English stem far more from the fact that I learned to enjoy reading at an early age than they do from any innate or predetermined internal wiring.
Neuro-science has shown that a new born childs brain is largely undifferentiated. Certain fundamental abilities like the swallow reflex and face and voice recognition are already beginning to develop. But any complex or higher learning takes place after birth. The act of learning involves the physical creation of neural linkages between brain cells. The more often a pattern is repeated the more linkages are formed, creating the (misleadingly named) internal wiring of the brain.
A seed will grow poorly in poor soil. It will grow better in good soil, better still in well drained moist soil and even better in a sunny sheltered location.
A tree planted in a good spot will grow better than one on a poorer spot. Do we then say that the bigger tree has a greater innate, inborn talent for growing than the smaller tree?
The word 'Talent' is a handy shorthand term for a very complex series of interactions - that is the words positive and useful aspect. The problem arises when we forget (or never learn) a fuller understanding of the structure of 'talent'. This lesser understanding has negative consequences. I don't have a talent for music so I won't bother trying. That guy has more talent than me (when in fact he may have just worked harder, wanted it more or simply had the good fortune to be 'planted in good fertile soil') and so on.
Ultimately, if you want to be the best you can be at something, do what the best people already do and find a newer, better way of doing it.
******
We have a TV show here called "Americas Got Talent" - it shows a big room full of people (presumably Americans) and a much smaller percentage of those people (probably less than 10%) who actually get up and perform some skill - some process, be it juggling, or magic tricks or gymnastics. These people have all practiced those skills until they have achieved sufficient competence to be selected for the show.
A more accurate name for the show would be "Less than 10% of Americans make the time and effort to practice skills until they reach performance standards". It could be said that Americas true talent lies in sitting back and watching the minority do the hard slogging repetition that is needed to get good at things.
(This is not American bashing BTW - this type of programming is seen all over the world - there is even an Afghan Idol!). |
Post by Jack Edwards // Jul 16, 2008, 1:47am
|
Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
|
I agree, we Americans have a strong talent for couch potato growing. Some of the largest and most plentiful in the world if I'm not mistaken... :p
The problem with this discussion is your definition of "talent", Wizard. It seems you are defining talent as ability + skill. Which in my mind is not a correct definition of talent. More correct would be: talent = innate ability + potential.
Also from various dictionaries:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/talent
"innate natural ability"
It is only related to skill as a scalar value. Skill being: technique + learning + practice + experience. Ability = Talent * skill.
While Talent isn't something that can be learned, it can however be uncovered, drawn out, and focused. For example someone can have a talent for mathematic thought, but it wouldn't be realized until they started studying and learning about mathematics.
The other problem that I have with this theory is that it ignores the human condition and heart. Some things are just special in a sort of magical ethereal transcendental way and part of a mystery that is greater than ourselves. |
Post by TomG // Jul 16, 2008, 3:05am
|
TomG
Total Posts: 3397
|
Yes, never quite subscribed to the tabula rasa theory. Everyone I think is born with certain leanings, talents and tendencies. Nature vs nurture is that it's always both - nature gives you potentials, nurture defines which of those are realised and by how much (or it can influence at least, if not define).
As a note, no-one in my family ever used a computer, yet I still got one and learned to program it. Everyone in my family remained disinterested. So despite this "negative environment" which would discourage rather than encourage such a thing, I still went down that route, because I found it fascinating and was good at it. So I don't think its enough just to say you grow up in the environment and that shapes you - in this instance, nothing in the environment encouraged that, but I still pursued it.
I've also got a strong love for science fiction, which everyone else in my family dislikes :) Again my environment was hostile to such a preference, yet I still had a liking for it - where did that come from if not from something just plain "built in" to my personality. Rather than my environment encourage it, I had to go against the environment to pursue that interest, like with computing. And so on.
Either way, you still need to work at a skill to improve it, and looking at the processes and techniques used by others will always help us learn and improve, no matter if we have a ton of talent or none!
HTH!
Tom |
Post by brotherx // Jul 16, 2008, 3:22am
|
brotherx
Total Posts: 538
|
As a note, no-one in my family ever used a computer, yet I still got one and learned to program it. Everyone in my family remained disinterested. So despite this "negative environment" which would discourage rather than encourage such a thing, I still went down that route, because I found it fascinating and was good at it. So I don't think its enough just to say you grow up in the environment and that shapes you - in this instance, nothing in the environment encouraged that, but I still pursued it.
I've also got a strong love for science fiction, which everyone else in my family dislikes Again my environment was hostile to such a preference, yet I still had a liking for it - where did that come from if not from something just plain "built in" to my personality. Rather than my environment encourage it, I had to go against the environment to pursue that interest, like with computing. And so on.
I'm kind of the opposite to you Tom.
From a very young age (me, age 6) my mother played games on an atari 2600. I got a computer at 11 and my mum used to play games on that too, though I spent more time programming.
Even now in her 50s she is a huge fan of games and has an Xbox, a PS2, a DS and a fairly high-end PC for games and the occasional Email. My father doesn't like games at all.
I'm a huge sci-fi fan and also enjoyed the classic brat-pack type movies. my mum is also a sci-fi fan but not to the same extent. My father watched everything that moved.
Of course I grew up when Star Trek was getting really popular again and the star wars movies were released. And then there was BSG, Buck Rogers and the rest too. |
Post by TomG // Jul 16, 2008, 4:23am
|
TomG
Total Posts: 3397
|
Sounds like you were watching the same TV fodder as myself!
Yes, I love games too, that was my other big interest, right from the Binatone days of tennis (pong by any other name), through the Atari of course, and these days to the PC, 360, Wii, and PS2, with an old XBox lurking in a cupboard someplace too (thank goodness they just announced Final Fantasy XIII for the 360 rather than PS3 exclusive!). I'll be gaming til the day I die (or my eyesight goes I guess).
Tom |
Post by brotherx // Jul 16, 2008, 4:31am
|
brotherx
Total Posts: 538
|
he he.
I was thinking the same thing about FFXIII as well. Those games are the only reason I still have my PS2 and the only reason I bought it. |
Post by W!ZARD // Jul 16, 2008, 5:01am
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
The problem with this discussion is your definition of "talent", Wizard. It seems you are defining talent as ability + skill. Which in my mind is not a correct definition of talent. More correct would be: talent = innate ability + potential.That's exactly right Jack - the 'problem' with this discussion lies with my definition of talent which differs from the usually accepted. My definition would be Talent = the illusion or appearance of innate ability and/or potential which is actually caused by the confluence of at least three separate but interconnected factors - learning, environment and genetic advantage.
Note that I'm not saying 'this is the way things are'. What I'm saying is 'this is a useful way of thinking about it'.
Along with my interest in all matters of the mind, computers, art, music, literature science fiction and other topics I've also studied Astrology. (Wizards do that!;)). This is not something I talk about a lot but I've studied it (and related subjects) for 30 years now.
Now the mystic and poet within me wants to live in a magical universe full of gods, spirits and universal interconnectedness that allows human affairs to be, if not affected by, at least reflected in, the heavens. On the other hand, the rational, logical scientifically curious mind within me can find no clear evidence supporting Astrology yet despite the lack of empirical proof I know from a lifetime of practical benefit that Astrology - whether or not it's true - is useful.
One innate ability or 'talent' that all human babies clearly exhibit is the ability to recognise faces. We are born with a predisposion toward the appreciation of symmetry and proportion conforming to the so-called Golden Mean, the ratio of 1 to1.6. These are (some of) the requirements an object must possess to qualify as beautiful to human perception. Human consciousness is largely based on the ability to recognise patterns - even when none exist - we've all seen faces at the window that turned into nothing but random patterns, we've all heard our names called when there is no-one there to speak - just random modulations similar enough in pattern to lead us to think we heard our names.
This pattern recognition lies behind our ability to use language, to appreciate art, to recognise danger and so on. This pattern recognition ability also allows us to see Astrological Patterns - Aquarians are altruistic in a little aloof, Capricorns are practical, Taureans, beautiful and stubborn, Leos are nataral leaders and so on.
Science, with it's ability to peer into the very dawn of the universe and the smallest subatomic spaces of the world has not yet uncovered a force or mechanism that would explain Astrology yet it's more popular now than ever before. We recognise the validity of Astrology (or at least anyone who has studies it at all does) because it allows us to see ourselves, patterns that are inherently human projected on to the world around us.
Physics allows us to study and measure the world - metaphysics allows us to study that which is seen but not measurable. We see metaphysics (Astrology, Numerology and so on) because our inbuilt ability to recognise patterns allows us to see random and unconnected shapes as having significance.
Who hasn't sat out on a sunny day and seen animal shapes in the clouds? To discern patterns that aren't physically there but are experientially there. I believe this is what happens when humans experience 'astrology' (amongst other things). We discern patterns with no physical significance yet are immediately recogniseable. These patterns have no objective reality but possess a subjective reality.
I think a convincing case can be made that this pattern recognition facility is what lies behind our common perception of 'Talent'. I appreciate saying this probably makes me as popular as Galileo at the Vatican. I'm not sure of the validity of this argument but I do think it makes at least as much sense as the idea of talent.
If we live in a causal universe and if 'talent' exists objectively (rather than subjectively as I suspect it might) then there must be some physical cause - some mechanism that bestows Mathematical talents to Brother X and English Talents to me and political talents to Tom and a love of Science Fiction to all three of us.
We can say it might be genetic but without empirical measureable and repeatable proof saying it's genetic is just as valid as saying it's because the Moon was aligned with Mars.
Jack, Brother X and Tom have all shared their belief in predetermined innate ability and some have also said something about why they hold that belief. I am yet to see anything like a description of how such predetermined attributes are assigned, or selected or indeed created. In the absence of a theory that is testable and consistently repeatable what we all see when we think we see 'talent' is simply a pattern perceived subjectively like an animal in the clouds.
Summing up I can see good reason to suspect that the perception of talent is an illusory by-product of the pattern recognition processes behind human awareness. I can't however see as clear a reason to suspect that 'talent' is somehow magically predetermined. I'm sitting firmly on the fence on this question and judging from the view up here, if I have to get off the fence I'll be on the opposite side to you other gentlemen!
Jack says (and with good reason) "The other problem that I have with this theory is that it ignores the human condition and heart. Some things are just special in a sort of magical ethereal transcendental way and part of a mystery that is greater than ourselves.". I think it addresses the Human condition specifically and logically and also addresses matters of the Human mind, the human experience. Some things are just special in a magical transcendental way but this is only subjective and has no objective reality. Is the garden not beautiful enough that it needs to have fairies in it too? As appealing as such thoughts are a discerning mind has to wonder of these magical aspects of reality are simply shapes perceived in the clouds.
In closing, you may not be surprised to know that I was seriously considering writing a book on this and related subjects but then I downloaded tS 3.2 and got sidetracked!!
I don't know the price of tS 7.6 but I do know the price of the waiting for it is long metaphysical rambles! For anyone who makes it this far - thanks for reading :D
That's it for today - I'm off to watch Torchwood on the tele. |
Post by jamesmc // Jul 16, 2008, 5:26am
|
jamesmc
Total Posts: 2566
|
(sang to the tune of rawhide, the TV western)
Keep scrolling, scrolling, scrolling
Keep them mouse wheels scrolling
Keep them mouse wheels scrolling - no price,
No dope, hope or random
We can even stand 'em
Ending the pleasures of my eyes... |
Post by holm // Jul 16, 2008, 5:40am
|
holm
Total Posts: 33
|
Back to the main topic and in ignorance to this epic thread: I think best price at the moment would be $0. Reason: it is a point upgrade and we have waited too long for this features which should be included latest in 7.1 ! This waiting for TS updates in geological periods is horrible. |
Post by Johny // Jul 16, 2008, 5:41am
|
Johny
Total Posts: 672
|
Hint:
look on other microsoft product price, then compare it with tS7.51 New user price, then make guess the tS7.6 upgrade price compare with other microsoft products upgrade price. :D
here an example: http://www.microsoft.com/expression/products/purchase.aspx?key=studio
This kind of price guess may have 30% error. :D |
Post by frootee // Jul 16, 2008, 5:41am
|
frootee
Total Posts: 2667
|
LMAO James! Oh man.
But still a good discussion. :D |
|
