Machines and money

[tee-rex]

As I said, if someone can create such program and demonstrate that it works, the magic is off. Basically, no, I think intelligence (ok so I write it with a c) is fundamentally human. If something is going to take over, it is probably another living organism.

Maybe like in exo-biology they use the term life-as-we-know-it (LAWKI) because we might not immediately recognize life when we first see it. The same might go for machine intelligence. We may create something so intelligent it doesn't bother to interact with us outside what we would consider normal machine operating parameters. Or maybe it won't laugh at our jokes until long after we go extinct. But one thing about science is a certainty, we can demonstrate in a lab any phenomenon we observe in nature, at least within reasonable scientific parameters. So to say that intelligence is unattainable through science is solipsism.

I for one don't know if we really can demonstrate in a lab any phenomenon we observe in nature, but even if so, we can reproduce only what is objective, when mind is purely subjective. Therefore, it is a moot point really at present (if we could do that in a lab).

If the mind is purely subjective, then what makes you think anything is real and not just a figment of your imagination?

This question itself doesn't make much sense, since anything that we consider real (or imaginary, for that matter) is purely subjective, given only through our perception, thus being a product of mind. It is all six of one and half a dozen of the other.

[tee-rex]

Second, you can't re-design a whole new organic creature, the phrase is oxymoronic. You either design a new creature, or re-design an already existing one.

Take a Ford-T.  Now change, one at a time, its chassis, its wheels, its engine, its steer, .... until you end up with a Ferrari.
Did you re-design the Ford-T, or did you design a new car ?

I wonder why you would ever ask this question. The answer is clear and unequivocal, you re-designed the old Ford-T by any means. The fact that it has now become a Ferrari doesn't change anything. It is the process that matters in this question (how you did it), not the end state (what you got).

[cbeast]

As I said, if someone can create such program and demonstrate that it works, the magic is off. Basically, no, I think intelligence (ok so I write it with a c) is fundamentally human. If something is going to take over, it is probably another living organism.

Maybe like in exo-biology they use the term life-as-we-know-it (LAWKI) because we might not immediately recognize life when we first see it. The same might go for machine intelligence. We may create something so intelligent it doesn't bother to interact with us outside what we would consider normal machine operating parameters. Or maybe it won't laugh at our jokes until long after we go extinct. But one thing about science is a certainty, we can demonstrate in a lab any phenomenon we observe in nature, at least within reasonable scientific parameters. So to say that intelligence is unattainable through science is solipsism.

I for one don't know if we really can demonstrate in a lab any phenomenon we observe in nature, but even if so, we can reproduce only what is objective, when mind is purely subjective. Therefore, it is a moot point really at present (if we could do that in a lab).

If the mind is purely subjective, then what makes you think anything is real and not just a figment of your imagination?

This question itself doesn't make much sense, since anything that we consider real (or imaginary, for that matter) is purely subjective, given only through our perception, thus being a product of mind. It is all six of one and half a dozen of the other.

That is solipsism. If you think the mind is outside of science then one cannot say if a machine can or cannot have one. If you believe you have a mind, then what makes you think a machine cannot?

[tee-rex]

As I said, if someone can create such program and demonstrate that it works, the magic is off. Basically, no, I think intelligence (ok so I write it with a c) is fundamentally human. If something is going to take over, it is probably another living organism.

Maybe like in exo-biology they use the term life-as-we-know-it (LAWKI) because we might not immediately recognize life when we first see it. The same might go for machine intelligence. We may create something so intelligent it doesn't bother to interact with us outside what we would consider normal machine operating parameters. Or maybe it won't laugh at our jokes until long after we go extinct. But one thing about science is a certainty, we can demonstrate in a lab any phenomenon we observe in nature, at least within reasonable scientific parameters. So to say that intelligence is unattainable through science is solipsism.

I for one don't know if we really can demonstrate in a lab any phenomenon we observe in nature, but even if so, we can reproduce only what is objective, when mind is purely subjective. Therefore, it is a moot point really at present (if we could do that in a lab).

If the mind is purely subjective, then what makes you think anything is real and not just a figment of your imagination?

This question itself doesn't make much sense, since anything that we consider real (or imaginary, for that matter) is purely subjective, given only through our perception, thus being a product of mind. It is all six of one and half a dozen of the other.

That is solipsism. If you think the mind is outside of science then one cannot say if a machine can or cannot have one. If you believe you have a mind, then what makes you think a machine cannot?

You seem to be confusing me with someone else. I never said that a machine couldn't have a mind (consciousness). All I say is that we may never be able to understand what mind really is, but this in no case could prevent us from creating it, just as we "create" our children (and their mind, in a sense).

In fact, there is a conditionally simple way to prove that it is possible (and science already goes that road).

[Erdogan]

Artificial Intelligense has bean dead for thirty years, after someone oversold it by stating that it was possible to create a program that could answer all questions, it was called the General Problem Solver. Look it up.

Meanwhile, artificial intelligense has been something that is artificial intelligense until someone can in fact create a program that works, after that it is neither artificial nor intelligense. Example is a program that can recognize visual forms.

Someone is peddling artificial intelligense again, I wonder why it comes now. A form of detraction from public knowlede about the sad state of the fiat system?

You don't believe AI is possible?

As I said, if someone can create such program and demonstrate that it works, the magic is off. Basically, no, I think intelligence (ok so I write it with a c) is fundamentally human. If something is going to take over, it is probably another living organism.

Maybe like in exo-biology they use the term life-as-we-know-it (LAWKI) because we might not immediately recognize life when we first see it. The same might go for machine intelligence. We may create something so intelligent it doesn't bother to interact with us outside what we would consider normal machine operating parameters. Or maybe it won't laugh at our jokes until long after we go extinct. But one thing about science is a certainty, we can demonstrate in a lab any phenomenon we observe in nature, at least within reasonable scientific parameters. So to say that intelligence is unattainable through science is solipsism.

I don't really need to say more about this, but was triggered by the word solipsism

I don't think there is a special limit to what can be created. I also don't care. If you are going to recreate the human mind, go for it, I suspect the resulting creature containing it will be carbon based and looking somewhat human. No, I don't think you can build a creature with a human mind that is made of titan and kevlar.

The more important thing for the economic viewpoint is that investments come from excess resources (savings) and will be used to save work only because the cost of the work have increased. The causation is: Savings exist -> cost of work rises -> investment. Not the other way around. The investment is made, basically, because people have better things to do. Thus prosperity advances.

Therefore, advancements in knowledge (technology) can not destroy prosperity. It is welfare, minimum wage, red tape, taxes and tariffs that destroys prosperity. Only a government can create famine.

[tee-rex]

I don't really need to say more about this, but was triggered by the word solipsism

I don't think there is a special limit to what can be created. I also don't care. If you are going to recreate the human mind, go for it, I suspect the resulting creature containing it will be carbon based and looking somewhat human. No, I don't think you can build a creature with a human mind that is made of titan and kevlar.

The more important thing for the economic viewpoint is that investments come from excess resources (savings) and will be used to save work only because the cost of the work have increased. The causation is: Savings exist -> cost of work rises -> investment. Not the other way around. The investment is made, basically, because people have better things to do. Thus prosperity advances.

Therefore, advancements in knowledge (technology) can not destroy prosperity. It is welfare, minimum wage, red tape, taxes and tariffs that destroys prosperity. Only a government can create famine.

In the long run, yes, technological advancements add up to prosperity, but they, nevertheless, undoubtedly make at least some people suffer in the short term, since a lot of people get fired whenever there is a significant improvement in the productive capacity. That's the reason why unemployment benefits (welfare) can still be purposeful.

[Erdogan]

I don't really need to say more about this, but was triggered by the word solipsism

I don't think there is a special limit to what can be created. I also don't care. If you are going to recreate the human mind, go for it, I suspect the resulting creature containing it will be carbon based and looking somewhat human. No, I don't think you can build a creature with a human mind that is made of titan and kevlar.

The more important thing for the economic viewpoint is that investments come from excess resources (savings) and will be used to save work only because the cost of the work have increased. The causation is: Savings exist -> cost of work rises -> investment. Not the other way around. The investment is made, basically, because people have better things to do. Thus prosperity advances.

Therefore, advancements in knowledge (technology) can not destroy prosperity. It is welfare, minimum wage, red tape, taxes and tariffs that destroys prosperity. Only a government can create famine.

In the long run, yes, technological advancements add up to prosperity, but they, nevertheless, undoubtedly make at least some people suffer in the short term, since a lot of people get fired whenever there is a significant improvement in the productive capacity. That's the reason why unemployment benefits (welfare) can still be purposeful.

A change will mean that people working in a low capital industry, will voluntarily change to a better job. The business see that they can not afford to hire new people requiring higher wages, therefore that business will have to invest or shut down. But I agree with you somewhat, all change is painful for some. The job market should be, as it has been in freer times, such that people, when they decide they need more income, just go to the job market and find a job they want.

I still propose that investments are lagging wages. Technology advancement means nothing to the economy if it is not implemented in the production structure.

[cbeast]

Artificial Intelligense has bean dead for thirty years, after someone oversold it by stating that it was possible to create a program that could answer all questions, it was called the General Problem Solver. Look it up.

Meanwhile, artificial intelligense has been something that is artificial intelligense until someone can in fact create a program that works, after that it is neither artificial nor intelligense. Example is a program that can recognize visual forms.

Someone is peddling artificial intelligense again, I wonder why it comes now. A form of detraction from public knowlede about the sad state of the fiat system?

You don't believe AI is possible?

As I said, if someone can create such program and demonstrate that it works, the magic is off. Basically, no, I think intelligence (ok so I write it with a c) is fundamentally human. If something is going to take over, it is probably another living organism.

Maybe like in exo-biology they use the term life-as-we-know-it (LAWKI) because we might not immediately recognize life when we first see it. The same might go for machine intelligence. We may create something so intelligent it doesn't bother to interact with us outside what we would consider normal machine operating parameters. Or maybe it won't laugh at our jokes until long after we go extinct. But one thing about science is a certainty, we can demonstrate in a lab any phenomenon we observe in nature, at least within reasonable scientific parameters. So to say that intelligence is unattainable through science is solipsism.

I don't really need to say more about this, but was triggered by the word solipsism

I don't think there is a special limit to what can be created. I also don't care. If you are going to recreate the human mind, go for it, I suspect the resulting creature containing it will be carbon based and looking somewhat human. No, I don't think you can build a creature with a human mind that is made of titan and kevlar.

The more important thing for the economic viewpoint is that investments come from excess resources (savings) and will be used to save work only because the cost of the work have increased. The causation is: Savings exist -> cost of work rises -> investment. Not the other way around. The investment is made, basically, because people have better things to do. Thus prosperity advances.

Therefore, advancements in knowledge (technology) can not destroy prosperity. It is welfare, minimum wage, red tape, taxes and tariffs that destroys prosperity. Only a government can create famine.

Machines don't need investments. They are investments. Money would only exist for machines in a closed system. The only closed system or machines is the human environment. Money is a human construct and machines would only use it in relation to human interaction. To machines, there is no welfare, there is only maximizing human comfort and quality of life within the human environment. If they choose to not help humans, there is a big Universe for them.

[Erdogan]

Artificial Intelligense has bean dead for thirty years, after someone oversold it by stating that it was possible to create a program that could answer all questions, it was called the General Problem Solver. Look it up.

Meanwhile, artificial intelligense has been something that is artificial intelligense until someone can in fact create a program that works, after that it is neither artificial nor intelligense. Example is a program that can recognize visual forms.

Someone is peddling artificial intelligense again, I wonder why it comes now. A form of detraction from public knowlede about the sad state of the fiat system?

You don't believe AI is possible?

As I said, if someone can create such program and demonstrate that it works, the magic is off. Basically, no, I think intelligence (ok so I write it with a c) is fundamentally human. If something is going to take over, it is probably another living organism.

Maybe like in exo-biology they use the term life-as-we-know-it (LAWKI) because we might not immediately recognize life when we first see it. The same might go for machine intelligence. We may create something so intelligent it doesn't bother to interact with us outside what we would consider normal machine operating parameters. Or maybe it won't laugh at our jokes until long after we go extinct. But one thing about science is a certainty, we can demonstrate in a lab any phenomenon we observe in nature, at least within reasonable scientific parameters. So to say that intelligence is unattainable through science is solipsism.

I don't really need to say more about this, but was triggered by the word solipsism

I don't think there is a special limit to what can be created. I also don't care. If you are going to recreate the human mind, go for it, I suspect the resulting creature containing it will be carbon based and looking somewhat human. No, I don't think you can build a creature with a human mind that is made of titan and kevlar.

The more important thing for the economic viewpoint is that investments come from excess resources (savings) and will be used to save work only because the cost of the work have increased. The causation is: Savings exist -> cost of work rises -> investment. Not the other way around. The investment is made, basically, because people have better things to do. Thus prosperity advances.

Therefore, advancements in knowledge (technology) can not destroy prosperity. It is welfare, minimum wage, red tape, taxes and tariffs that destroys prosperity. Only a government can create famine.

Machines don't need investments. They are investments. Money would only exist for machines in a closed system. The only closed system or machines is the human environment. Money is a human construct and machines would only use it in relation to human interaction. To machines, there is no welfare, there is only maximizing human comfort and quality of life within the human environment. If they choose to not help humans, there is a big Universe for them.

You already have this with all the other species around, some of which you don't even know exists.

[tee-rex]

I don't really need to say more about this, but was triggered by the word solipsism

I don't think there is a special limit to what can be created. I also don't care. If you are going to recreate the human mind, go for it, I suspect the resulting creature containing it will be carbon based and looking somewhat human. No, I don't think you can build a creature with a human mind that is made of titan and kevlar.

The more important thing for the economic viewpoint is that investments come from excess resources (savings) and will be used to save work only because the cost of the work have increased. The causation is: Savings exist -> cost of work rises -> investment. Not the other way around. The investment is made, basically, because people have better things to do. Thus prosperity advances.

Therefore, advancements in knowledge (technology) can not destroy prosperity. It is welfare, minimum wage, red tape, taxes and tariffs that destroys prosperity. Only a government can create famine.

In the long run, yes, technological advancements add up to prosperity, but they, nevertheless, undoubtedly make at least some people suffer in the short term, since a lot of people get fired whenever there is a significant improvement in the productive capacity. That's the reason why unemployment benefits (welfare) can still be purposeful.

A change will mean that people working in a low capital industry, will voluntarily change to a better job. The business see that they can not afford to hire new people requiring higher wages, therefore that business will have to invest or shut down. But I agree with you somewhat, all change is painful for some. The job market should be, as it has been in freer times, such that people, when they decide they need more income, just go to the job market and find a job they want.

The history reveals that unless government alleviates the consequences of a technological paradigm shift (by benefits or somehow else), the changes brought about by it are often dramatic up to a point of social unrest (the Luddites breaking newly developed labor-replacing machinery in the beginning of the 19th century in England).

[Erdogan]

I don't really need to say more about this, but was triggered by the word solipsism

I don't think there is a special limit to what can be created. I also don't care. If you are going to recreate the human mind, go for it, I suspect the resulting creature containing it will be carbon based and looking somewhat human. No, I don't think you can build a creature with a human mind that is made of titan and kevlar.

The more important thing for the economic viewpoint is that investments come from excess resources (savings) and will be used to save work only because the cost of the work have increased. The causation is: Savings exist -> cost of work rises -> investment. Not the other way around. The investment is made, basically, because people have better things to do. Thus prosperity advances.

Therefore, advancements in knowledge (technology) can not destroy prosperity. It is welfare, minimum wage, red tape, taxes and tariffs that destroys prosperity. Only a government can create famine.

In the long run, yes, technological advancements add up to prosperity, but they, nevertheless, undoubtedly make at least some people suffer in the short term, since a lot of people get fired whenever there is a significant improvement in the productive capacity. That's the reason why unemployment benefits (welfare) can still be purposeful.

A change will mean that people working in a low capital industry, will voluntarily change to a better job. The business see that they can not afford to hire new people requiring higher wages, therefore that business will have to invest or shut down. But I agree with you somewhat, all change is painful for some. The job market should be, as it has been in freer times, such that people, when they decide they need more income, just go to the job market and find a job they want.

The history reveals that unless government alleviates the consequences of a technological paradigm shift (by benefits or somehow else), the changes brought about by it are often dramatic up to a point of social unrest (the Luddites breaking newly developed labor-replacing machinery in the beginning of the 19th century in England).

No, leave it alone and it will change gently. I don't want to say more, can we agree to disagree?

[dinofelis]

If the mind is purely subjective, then what makes you think anything is real and not just a figment of your imagination?

That's a position that is very real   It is called strong solipsism. 

In fact, my stance on solipsism is that it might very well be true, but that that actually doesn't matter.  After all, what matters (for you) are your personal subjective perceptions and sensations.  Now, if those perceptions and sensations are *well explained* by *postulating* an (eventually non-existing) external world, then even though it would be ontologically erroneous to do so, it would be a very practical working hypothesis.  So, taking as a working hypothesis that the external world exists, is by itself, a good working hypothesis, because it can help you understand the correlations between your sensations.  Whether that external world actually ontologically exists or not, doesn't, in fact, really matter !

Let me explain with an example.  If you have the sensations that agree with "I take a hammer in my hand and I give a blow with it on my toes", and the next sensations are "goddammit, my foot hurts like hell !", then it makes much more sense to take as a working hypothesis that your body exists, that the external world exists, that that hammer exists and that you really hit your foot, rather than postulating that all that is a figment of your imagination - even if the latter would be ontologically true.

So whether that hammer really exists or not does in fact not matter.  You understand your subjective sensations much better by taking as a working hypothesis that it does.  And that's sufficient to do so.

[dinofelis]

I wonder why you would ever ask this question. The answer is clear and unequivocal, you re-designed the old Ford-T by any means. The fact that it has now become a Ferrari doesn't change anything. It is the process that matters in this question (how you did it), not the end state (what you got).

So if I obtained a Ferrari by putting its pieces one by one as a replacement on a Ford-T, I would have a redesigned ford-T, but if I made exactly the same Ferrari by assembling directly all those pieces, and never put them first on a modified Ford-T, it would be a Ferrari ?

So if you take a prehistoric fish, change its brain, change its skin, change its skeleton, .... until it is a human, you redesigned a fish.  But if you have intercourse with your wife and she gives birth to a child, then you made a human ?

[tee-rex]

I wonder why you would ever ask this question. The answer is clear and unequivocal, you re-designed the old Ford-T by any means. The fact that it has now become a Ferrari doesn't change anything. It is the process that matters in this question (how you did it), not the end state (what you got).

So if I obtained a Ferrari by putting its pieces one by one as a replacement on a Ford-T, I would have a redesigned ford-T, but if I made exactly the same Ferrari by assembling directly all those pieces, and never put them first on a modified Ford-T, it would be a Ferrari ?

In both of these cases, the end result will be a Ferrari (what you got), in fact, it will the same Ferrari. As I said, it is the process how you got what you got and what you took as its basis that matters in the differentiation between desinging something anew and redesigning something already existing.

Strictly speaking, you neither designed a new Ferrari nor redesigned an old Ford-T, right?

[cbeast]

If the mind is purely subjective, then what makes you think anything is real and not just a figment of your imagination?

That's a position that is very real   It is called strong solipsism. 

In fact, my stance on solipsism is that it might very well be true, but that that actually doesn't matter.  After all, what matters (for you) are your personal subjective perceptions and sensations.  Now, if those perceptions and sensations are *well explained* by *postulating* an (eventually non-existing) external world, then even though it would be ontologically erroneous to do so, it would be a very practical working hypothesis.  So, taking as a working hypothesis that the external world exists, is by itself, a good working hypothesis, because it can help you understand the correlations between your sensations.  Whether that external world actually ontologically exists or not, doesn't, in fact, really matter !

Let me explain with an example.  If you have the sensations that agree with "I take a hammer in my hand and I give a blow with it on my toes", and the next sensations are "goddammit, my foot hurts like hell !", then it makes much more sense to take as a working hypothesis that your body exists, that the external world exists, that that hammer exists and that you really hit your foot, rather than postulating that all that is a figment of your imagination - even if the latter would be ontologically true.

So whether that hammer really exists or not does in fact not matter.  You understand your subjective sensations much better by taking as a working hypothesis that it does.  And that's sufficient to do so.

To follow with your hypothesis and make it repeatable, I would also have to smack your toes with a hammer and see your foot swell. Your solipsism becomes my empiricism. Humans have mirror neurons to assist with this process. Machines would need to simulate pain and empathy to test these hypotheses. Would that make them solipsistic? Would robots dream of electric sheep?

[dinofelis]

So if I obtained a Ferrari by putting its pieces one by one as a replacement on a Ford-T, I would have a redesigned ford-T, but if I made exactly the same Ferrari by assembling directly all those pieces, and never put them first on a modified Ford-T, it would be a Ferrari ?

In both of these cases, the end result will be a Ferrari (what you got), in fact, it will the same Ferrari. As I said, it is the process how you got what you got and what you took as its basis that matters in the differentiation between desinging something anew and redesigning something already existing.

Strictly speaking, you neither designed a new Ferrari nor redesigned an old Ford-T, right?

The point was: if a human is so much "re designed" or if a new biological creature is "designed" that we get a totally different organic body, why would we still consider it to be a "human" ? 

The argument was that if we succeed, indirectly, to design more intelligent machines (by having them invent more and more intelligent machines themselves), we could also (re?) design human beings in becoming more and more intelligent.  However, my point was that in the end, the resulting creature would be as different from a human as humans are different from fish.  So why would we still consider those new beings as "humans", and not consider us as "fish" ?

In what way will those biological creatures be more "human" than the machines that were ALSO designed initially on purpose by us ?

It is the end result that counts, I would say, and not the way to get there.

[dinofelis]

To follow with your hypothesis and make it repeatable, I would also have to smack your toes with a hammer and see your foot swell. Your solipsism becomes my empiricism. Humans have mirror neurons to assist with this process. Machines would need to simulate pain and empathy to test these hypotheses. Would that make them solipsistic? Would robots dream of electric sheep?

No, because under the hypothesis of (mutual) solipsism, I only exist as a figment of your imagination - while you only exist as a figment of my imagination.  There's no point for YOU to want to repeat "experiments" which are only existing in your own imagination but of which you imagine that they correspond to "my imagination", right ?  (hum, that gets weird ).

[tee-rex]

So if I obtained a Ferrari by putting its pieces one by one as a replacement on a Ford-T, I would have a redesigned ford-T, but if I made exactly the same Ferrari by assembling directly all those pieces, and never put them first on a modified Ford-T, it would be a Ferrari ?

In both of these cases, the end result will be a Ferrari (what you got), in fact, it will the same Ferrari. As I said, it is the process how you got what you got and what you took as its basis that matters in the differentiation between desinging something anew and redesigning something already existing.

Strictly speaking, you neither designed a new Ferrari nor redesigned an old Ford-T, right?

The point was: if a human is so much "re designed" or if a new biological creature is "designed" that we get a totally different organic body, why would we still consider it to be a "human" ? 

The argument was that if we succeed, indirectly, to design more intelligent machines (by having them invent more and more intelligent machines themselves), we could also (re?) design human beings in becoming more and more intelligent.  However, my point was that in the end, the resulting creature would be as different from a human as humans are different from fish.  So why would we still consider those new beings as "humans", and not consider us as "fish" ?

In what way will those biological creatures be more "human" than the machines that were ALSO designed initially on purpose by us ?

The argument was that the sentient machines would be, first, more intelligent than humans, and, second, unpredictable (as a consequence of the first). Regarding new beings, it doesn't matter that these creatures will be as different from humans as the latter are different from fish, since them will still be us. For example, if you count with a calculator, does this process change your inner self somehow, despite the fact that your counting capacity grows tremendously and in this respect you stop being "human"?

I think you are trying to endow your machines with abilities that are not just beyond our comprehension but also beyond the ability scope of this universe.

[dinofelis]

The argument was that the sentient machines would be, first, more intelligent than humans, and, second, unpredictable (as a consequence of the first).

Yes.

Regarding new beings, it doesn't matter that these creatures will be as different from humans as the latter are different from fish, since them will still be us. For example, if you count with a calculator, does this process change your inner self somehow, despite the fact that your counting capacity grows tremendously and in this respect you stop being "human"?

Isn't the bold-faced stuff self-contradictory ?  If they are totally different, how are they "us" ?

[tee-rex]

The argument was that the sentient machines would be, first, more intelligent than humans, and, second, unpredictable (as a consequence of the first).

Yes.

Regarding new beings, it doesn't matter that these creatures will be as different from humans as the latter are different from fish, since them will still be us. For example, if you count with a calculator, does this process change your inner self somehow, despite the fact that your counting capacity grows tremendously and in this respect you stop being "human"?

Isn't the bold-faced stuff self-contradictory ?  If they are totally different, how are they "us" ?

You chose the wrong sentence to highlight. Did you read the next sentence? A calculator on your desktop essentially makes you into a super-human (in respect to calculations), but did it actually change your mind (even if you had it right in your head)? The process of understanding something (our apple of discord) is indeed different but not far from calculating. An ability to understand faster and sharper won't change your mind by any means. The difference will be only quantitative.

Have you seen Limitless?