I am wondering
1) Weather somebody that obtains all the possible knowledge (i.e all the past and present knowledge on a certain subject )
if that out weighs experience? And if it is easier to teach somebody that has experience then total knowledge? (leaving off talent i.e assuming both people have the same potiential talent )
2) When something new comes out in a particular field how many people in that field / or hobbiest can understand it fully. And how much time does it normally take before the average population / people in the field can fully understand it. Basically what I am getting at is what is the extent of progress of the average person to the most elite person in the field. Is it getting more close to the same?
3) What is the extent of the most elite experience? What I mean is mathematically we can put a bound on how long a person could possible live naturally so in that time duration what is the extent of the most experience one could gain in a particular field? And once we know that that would determine the extent of what a human being can do.
(i.e functional wise with no aided help from computers or more people working together ) (essentially a humans most elite level of mental and physical expert's )
4) And what constitutes who gets what or what quality of life at that point when everybody pretty much can do the same thing/ around the same thing. Maybe it becomes not what you know but who you know.
Maybe it should come down into what a person can endure or is willing to endure in an average day.
Maybe it comes down into what a person is willing to do.
Maybe it comes down to what a person capible of doing based on there believes, or mental/physical restrictions
Question 4 can never be solved though questions 1-3 can to some extent be mathematically solved
So what makes 4 so much harder ? Because it is based on only believe and that is the flaw or what makes use different then robots.
1) Weather somebody that obtains all the possible knowledge (i.e all the past and present knowledge on a certain subject )
if that out weighs experience? And if it is easier to teach somebody that has experience then total knowledge? (leaving off talent i.e assuming both people have the same potiential talent )
2) When something new comes out in a particular field how many people in that field / or hobbiest can understand it fully. And how much time does it normally take before the average population / people in the field can fully understand it. Basically what I am getting at is what is the extent of progress of the average person to the most elite person in the field. Is it getting more close to the same?
3) What is the extent of the most elite experience? What I mean is mathematically we can put a bound on how long a person could possible live naturally so in that time duration what is the extent of the most experience one could gain in a particular field? And once we know that that would determine the extent of what a human being can do.
(i.e functional wise with no aided help from computers or more people working together ) (essentially a humans most elite level of mental and physical expert's )
4) And what constitutes who gets what or what quality of life at that point when everybody pretty much can do the same thing/ around the same thing. Maybe it becomes not what you know but who you know.
Maybe it should come down into what a person can endure or is willing to endure in an average day.
Maybe it comes down into what a person is willing to do.
Maybe it comes down to what a person capible of doing based on there believes, or mental/physical restrictions
Question 4 can never be solved though questions 1-3 can to some extent be mathematically solved
So what makes 4 so much harder ? Because it is based on only believe and that is the flaw or what makes use different then robots.
Last edited: