Sensible Erection | Beaten Into Brilliance

Sunday, 29 April 2012

quote [ At the time, doctors said he had a concussion, but within a day or two, Padgett began to notice something remarkable. This college dropout who couldn’t draw became obsessed with drawing intricate diagrams, but didn’t know what they were. ]

Damage forces a man's mind to compensate by utilizing parts of the brain that others generally don't have access to. A rare case I know, but an interesting insight into the workings of the human mind. I Love This Stuff!

[sci&tech] [by blackpsypher@6:30pmGMT] [+4 Interesting]

Comments

Bob Denver said @ 6:50pm GMT on 29th Apr
It's interesting that he only uses straight lines...

Naruki said @ 11:38pm GMT on 29th Apr
Are you saying he was beaten into homophobia?

lilmookieesquire said @ 6:52pm GMT on 29th Apr
"A scan of Padgett’s brain showed damage that was forcing his brain to overcompensate in certain areas that most people don’t have access to, Brogaard explained. The result was Padgett was now an acquired savant, meaning brilliant in a specific area."

Can you assholes PLEASE test the living shit out of him while he lives? K thx bi.

lilmookieesquire said @ 11:16pm GMT on 29th Apr
(as an example of brain adaption)

azazel said @ 11:51pm GMT on 29th Apr
Where do you adopt a brain? I'd like one. I think I'd call it 'dango'. Take it for walks in its jar and all that.

lilmookieesquire said @ 5:15pm GMT on 30th Apr
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation :)

cb361 said @ 6:58pm GMT on 29th Apr
For clickeebiggemer images:
http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/jason-padgett.html

Mad March Harris said @ 7:18pm GMT on 29th Apr
Parts of the brain most people don't have access to? I'm not disputing a change in the guy but it sounds like the writer subscribes to that "we only use 10% of our brains" bullshit. You start with access to 100% of your brain and work on a deduction basis from there on. The difference is what parts are emphasized.

spite48 said @ 10:01pm GMT on 29th Apr
Isn't the truth about the 10% myth that it is based on brain activity scans which show use "at any given time"? It is surely sensible that when sitting quietly during a brain scan thinking about breasts, you aren't putting huge demands on the speech center, visual cortex, motor-control system and so on?

Naruki said @ 11:42pm GMT on 29th Apr [Score:1 Informative]
Nope. It was made up wholesale, and in a time when actual brain activity scans were not a possibility.

spite48 said @ 1:01am GMT on 30th Apr
I was close:

"Obviously not all the brain is in use at once. At any given time about 5 percent of the neurons are active, the only sense in which the old saw is even close to true. (Good thing, too, or you'd have the equivalent of a grand mal seizure, a mental electrical storm in which all the neurons fire continually.) The parts of the brain are highly specialized, and some areas are more active than others depending on the task at hand. But all the parts do something, and it seems safe to say that over time you use pretty much all your brain, just as most people use all their muscles to some degree."

azazel said @ 1:33am GMT on 30th Apr
I never smile, so I save at least 17 muscles (or whatever it is people claim smiling requires) from ever working.

Naruki said @ 2:25am GMT on 30th Apr
I usually see the claim of 7 to smile, 50+ to frown.

Turns out that is BS, too.

azazel said @ 2:40am GMT on 30th Apr
I love The Straight Dope; was a member on their forum for years way back. They slowed down to the point where they became less than usable though; but again that was several years ago and hardware has gotten better since then. They charged $10 or something to become a member of the forums (after a trial phase of 30 days, I think it was), which kept a lot of the rabble out. Friendlier than SA, and with a more knowledgeable crowd to boot. I wonder what it looks like now.

Naruki said @ 2:27am GMT on 30th Apr
Your speculation as to how the scan would show that was fairly spot on, IMO. But your suggestion that the origin had any scientific evidence behind it whatsoever was wrong, and that's what I was referring to.

spite48 said @ 3:00pm GMT on 30th Apr
Yeah, I got that.

sanepride said @ 7:19pm GMT on 29th Apr
This kind of thing is always fascinating, though I have a problem with the categorization of these new-found abilities as 'genius' or 'brilliance'. The article does otherwise describe the guy more accurately as a 'savant'- after all, how often are autistic savants described as 'geniuses' for possessing a very particular remarkable ability? I think of this term more aptly to describe not simply some amazing talent or insight, but the ability to apply it in some wider or more practical manner. It isn't really clear that Mr. Padgett has attained that, he is after all still working in a futon store.

This story though does remind me of an article I read a few years ago by Dr. Oliver Sacks about a man struck by lightening who afterward found himself obsessed with music, to the point where he became an accomplished pianist. abstract here.

bltrocker said @ 7:20pm GMT on 29th Apr [Score:2]
I don't buy it yet. Too many red flags. Something's fishy...

"A scan of Padgett’s brain showed damage that was forcing his brain to overcompensate in certain areas that most people don’t have access to"

Fuck the article right there. Fuck it right in the face. Perpetuating the myth that we don't use certain areas of our brain.

"The diagrams he draws are called fractals and Padgett can draw a visual representation of the formula Pi"

Hmm... They are implying that Pi is a fractal? I'm no mathematician, but is that true? I don't see how that drawing is even a visual representation, other than the fact that it looks like how Pi was originally derived by splitting a circle up into a bunch of wedges, which is hardly original.

In a video by a local Fox station, he says his daughter has woken him up because he was counting primes in his sleep. Could Padgett be face's true identity ;P? Oh, and the last few seconds of the fox video are ridiculous, saying that he's working with MIT on a fractal fusion reactor that in theory would provide unlimited clean energy. Christ.

Found the video here

I tried looking for any studies by Berit Brogaard that dealt with this, and there seem to be none after a PubMed and Google Scholar search. Seems the op article is overselling her neuroscience experience over what she really is - a philosopher.

cb361 said @ 7:26pm GMT on 29th Apr
A fractal fusion reactor? Definitely -_-. ;-)

azazel said @ 7:29pm GMT on 29th Apr [Score:1 Interesting]
pi is not a fractal; fractals are geometric shapes, not just number series. Fractals are also self-similar at any magnification, which pi isn't (since there's no pattern at all to pi (which kinda blows my mind any time I stop to think about it)).

benjamander said @ 4:36am GMT on 30th Apr
Series approximations of pi can be thought of as fractal in nature. If you were to geometrically calculate pi from one of these series:

It would exhibit appropriate self similarity.

But that is not what I see in any of the pictures on the website. It's often hard for non-mathematicians to understand why it doesn't work just because the math feels right.

azazel said @ 11:45am GMT on 30th Apr
Not... really. You can't guess the next digit in pi from what has come before, no matter how you visually represent it. In a fractal you can know the exact values of it at any magnification because of how fractals work.

I hope that's clearer?

theolypse said @ 3:40am GMT on 1st May
Fractals are a shakily-defined gestalt. You're both wroght.

bltrocker said @ 7:32pm GMT on 29th Apr [Score:2 Insightful]
To clarify a bit, I don't think this guy is a fraud. I'm more thinking that the associated researchers and subsequent terrible science journalism is likely inflating the real worth of whatever traits he has developed. This is why more people who are good at writing that major in the sciences should move into journalism. The field really needs it, and many people don't realize it's an option.

Also, that would leave more grant money for me.

sanepride said @ 7:54pm GMT on 29th Apr
Yeah, that's my problem with using words like 'genius', as I mentioned above. There's some great journalism in this area by Sacks, who I cited in my comment.

Stension said @ 9:42pm GMT on 29th Apr
The entire article sounds slightly overblown.

dangerm00se said @ 10:11pm GMT on 29th Apr [Score:1 Insightful]
Some fractals and Pi are similar in that they are limited things with infinite complexity inside. You can express Pi at 3.14159 and that's good enough from an engineering standpoint, but its complexity is seemingly infinite, unless, of course, it stops somewhere.

Fractals are unlike Pi in that they are physical objects limited to physical reality, while we can imagine a koch snowflake [pictured below] with infinite surface area, there can be no side of the koch snowflake that is shorter than one planck length, limiting its surface area to a proportionality of its diameter.

iosef said @ 7:02am GMT on 30th Apr [Score:2]
Fractals are mathematical sets that may or may not have a geometric / visual representation. they cannot have a true physical manifestation for the reasons you mentioned. some physical objects like snowflakes may exhibit fractal-like properties at certain scales. fractal.

Also, the decimal representation of pi does not "stop somewhere." This was first proved by a Schweizer in 1761.

capncrunch said @ 7:50pm GMT on 29th Apr [Score:1 WTF]
He sells these and you should read the descriptions.

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/why-e-equals-mc2-where-energy-comes-from-jason-padgett.html

"Scientists have know for several years that every shape that exists is a fractal. But they didn't know why."

Ankylosaur said @ 8:06pm GMT on 29th Apr
The Octagon is a fractal. Can you explain that, Mr. Scientist? No, you can't!

GordonGuano said @ 5:12am GMT on 30th Apr
Also, the lotus is the only flower with infinite petals.

Ankylosaur said @ 9:05pm GMT on 29th Apr [Score:5 Funny]

Mr. Langosta said @ 6:34am GMT on 30th Apr
On the DVD commentary, they call that over-the-shoulder view "FrankenBart." They stopped using it shortly after. The angle just doesn't work. Family Guy once had a bit about how Stewie is never show in profile.

buckaroo50 said @ 10:24pm GMT on 30th Apr
Not as pop culture, but a weird animation quirk. When my kids were into Micky Mouse Clubhouse, it struck me as odd that Mickey/Minnie's ears were both always visible and square to the camera even in profile to keep that trademark mickey ear look. Must have been some unusual rendering algorithm since it was a CGI show.

b said @ 11:27pm GMT on 30th Apr
You're probably right. I do remember reading something or watching something that Mickey's ears must always remain that way, regardless of what view of his head is showing. As you say, it's to retain the iconic silhouette.

pleaides said @ 11:19pm GMT on 29th Apr [Score:2]
I'm preparing to launch my "Make Your Child A Genius: The Applied Physical Violence System"

I expect glorious results.

spite48 said @ 11:31pm GMT on 29th Apr
Does it matter how violence is applied, in terms of method, severity or location? I'd like to increase my ability to draw geometric figures, but I don't really want to get better at house cleaning. I am very happy that I am not currently asked to do very much in that regard because of my ineptness.

Mr. Langosta said @ 6:32am GMT on 30th Apr
I read about this guy last year on Cracked. They're write up is more interesting of course.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19504_6-people-who-gained-amazing-skills-from-brain-injuries.html

Mr. Langosta said @ 6:33am GMT on 30th Apr [Score:2 Funny]
*their

WTF, Langosta? Clearly I just have run of the mill brain damage.