Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Human Brain, The -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (387)	2/10/2014 9:02:45 AM
From: George Statham	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 935

Thanks for elucidating. It would have been more accurate to say that the analytical advantages I think I'd have in a game would be minimized. In the complexity book, they talk about emergent properties of complex systems. One guy was a nobel laureate solid state physicist. He was saying that at each level there are properties that can't be predicted at the previous level. The particle physics guys were the snootiest and claimed to be the deepest. But wave dynamics can't be predicted from knowledge of atomic particles. It is interesting to hear where the complexity lies. And there are certainly extremely bright people playing. Would you still recommend supersystem? I see Harrington's book seems to be the highest rated on amazon (no limit though). I'm not sure things like chess stay left brain (math type lateralization) at higher levels. It may, but it becomes more intuitive. At the lowest levels, it's -- can this piece move here, if I do this and he does that... A little higher and you're viewing a field and not individual pieces. And the analysis flows more like watching a movie. At a higher level, a move just feels like a good move. Thanks again. That was fun to read and think about.