 |
 |
 |
 |
This is a fascinating documentary on a guy from the UK whose brain works in quite unique ways. Two surprising abilities include his use of imagery to do massive mathematical calculations and also his ability to learn any new language at a conversational level within about 7 days.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
| The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene |
 |
| Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body |
 |
| Catalyzing Inquiry at the Interface of Computing and Biology |
 |
| System Modeling in Cellular Biology: From Concepts to Nuts and Bolts |
 |
| The Plausibility of Life By Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart |
 |
| Agents Under Fire by Angus Menuge |
 |
| Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris |
 |
| Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P. Yockey |
 |
| The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies |
 |
| Nature, Design, and Science by Del Ratzsch |
 |
| Origination of Organismal Form by Muller & Newman |
 |
| Biased Embryos and Evolution by Wallace Arthur |
 |
| Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee |
 |
| The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards |
 |
| The Way of the Cell by Franklin Harold |
 |
| The Volitional Brain by Benjamin Libet |
 |
| Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka & Marion Lamb |
 |
| The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse |
March 6th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Amazing. Numbers as shapes and calculations as landscapes. Thanks for sharing that, bipod.
Comment by MikeGene — March 6, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
March 6th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Daniel appeared in a recent 60 Minutes segment. His drawing of the "landscape" of the number pi appears at 6:45 in part 1:
Part 1
Part 2
He also has a blog.
Comment by keiths — March 6, 2007 @ 4:01 pm
March 6th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Joy,
You've mentioned that you're a synesthete. Have you posted anything at TT which describes your synesthesia?
Comment by keiths — March 6, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
March 6th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
"It's not human." (Daniel's Icelandic language tutor.)
Awesome. You know, in the last week or so, I've had a somewhat similar experience at work. I build cabinets in a production trailer facility, and fairly often have to install brackets for adjustable shelves instead of immovable, permanent shelves. When I do, I have to grab some tiny screws out of a small box - I prefer to grab the exact amount I need before turning the cabinet over and doing the other side. It used to be, I'd have to count the screws. Lately, though, I've found that I can, without looking, grab some screws, and tell almost immediately if I have the right number, or if I need one or two, or need to put back a couple. I've found that if I stop to think about it, I usually get it wrong, but if I go with my instinct, I'm usually right. Nothing anywhere near Daniel's ability, but surprising to me (and it doesn't depend on the amount I need, it seems, either, although perhaps I've just gotten used to the "feel" of the right amount, from "practice").
Also, I had a severe head injury back when I was 7 - I fell onto a paved road about 14 feet (?) off a steeply inclined hill which bordered the road. This was at my family's lake cottage in Michigan (Birch Lake, to be precise). I apparently landed almost horizontally, and was found with my right arm across my forehead, in a "protective" position, landing face down. I was in a mild coma for about a day, and all I remember is falling, then at one point semi-awaking in a hospital room, lying on a table, with a bunch of nurses and doctors around and moving about, and noticing I was naked, and becoming quite embarassed and alarmed, then fading out. I don't think I'm a savant, though…maybe just brain-damaged.
Comment by Douglas — March 6, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
March 6th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
keiths:
Nothing specific that I recall, other than the fact that I've had some luck "teaching" people - not all of them related to me - how to perceive synesthetically. I usually use 4-leaf clovers for the exercise, because they're hard and baritone (as opposed to regular clover, which is flat alto). Or, purple instead of green once you're used to them. In lieu of that, mushrooms (they ring like tuning forks, fern spores emit yellow-green light…).
They usually tell me it's "like remembering." I share Cytowic's opinion that all humans are born synesthetic and then learn how to compartmentalize (as well as to ignore the extra info). I can compartmentalize easily at this age, usually have to 'turn it on' now. But I can spot a 4-leaf clover in a pasture full of white clover from yards away. Well, with my glasses these days… §;o)
Comment by Joy — March 6, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
March 6th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Daniel T. is also known for his "European record for memorising and recounting pi to 22,514 digits in just over five hours" from memory! I don't believe he got any numbers wrong either.
He says he 'travels the lanscape in his mind' or something similar in a PBS documentary on him from a couple years back iirc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
Comment by Rob R. — March 6, 2007 @ 9:39 pm
March 7th, 2007 at 7:22 am
Feynman vs. The Abacus
Comment by MikeGene — March 7, 2007 @ 7:22 am
March 7th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Tammet is calculating 377 multiplied by 795. Actually, he isn't "calculating": there is nothing conscious about what he is doing. He arrives at the answer instantly. Since his epileptic fit, he has been able to see numbers as shapes, colours and textures. The number two, for instance, is a motion, and five is a clap of thunder. "When I multiply numbers together, I see two shapes. The image starts to change and evolve, and a third shape emerges. That's the answer. It's mental imagery. It's like maths without having to think."
[...]
Last year Tammet broke the European record for recalling pi, the mathematical constant, to the furthest decimal point. He found it easy, he says, because he didn't even have to "think". To him, pi isn't an abstract set of digits; it's a visual story, a film projected in front of his eyes. ~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/week...
Sort of as if he sees the 'design' without the pesky filters (metaphysical presumptions) the rest of us have. Of course, the rest of us can "drive a car, wire a plug, [and] tell right from left" so hard to say who's got it 'better.'
Shame he doesn't have the same abilities wrt biology that he has wrt maths and languages. Or perhaps, he hasn't tried such yet. Interesting thought.
Comment by Rob R. — March 7, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
March 7th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Rob,
If so, then why did it take him a full week of diligent study to memorize the first 22,514 digits of pi?
Oh, and I am amazed at the scientists who interviewed him and their attempts to determine if he actually associated shapes and colors with numbers. Their method? Ask him to model, with variously colored pieces of clay, some random numbers they mention, then the next day, ask him to do the same, with the same numbers. Voila! - he reproduces clearly similar shapes, nearly identical, with the same coloring, for the same numbers. And what do they conclude from this? That he is, indeed, associating unique and unchanging shapes and colors with various numbers. The problem? They forget that Daniel is clearly a memory giant, and could quite easily have memorized the shapes and colors he associated with the random numbers on the first day, then reproduced those shapes and colors, given the same numbers, the second day, and thus done so not because he "sees" numbers having shapes and colors, but because he consciously reproduced those same shapes and colors which he had chosen the first day, using his tremendous memory, a memory which might not associate shapes and colors with numbers. That is, their method showed only that Daniel has a powerful memory - it did not show that he associates shapes and colors with numbers. Specifically, they by no means, and clearly by no means, confirmed what they claim to have confirmed.
Personally, I have no reason to doubt that Daniel does indeed associate shapes and colors with numbers. My only gripe is that such "renowned" and educated and respected scientists and professional could make such an obvious and silly goof, not notice it, and not have anyone else seemingly notice it, and have those scientists confidently proclaim things they have no right to proclaim. It makes me wonder if scientists in general have a habit of doing this - maybe even evolutionists are guilty.
Comment by Douglas — March 7, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
March 7th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Hello Douglas,
If so, then why did it take him a full week of diligent study to memorize the first 22,514 digits of pi?
Good point, I read that it several places actually but I guess it didn't stick.
They forget that Daniel is clearly a memory giant, and could quite easily have memorized the shapes and colors he associated with the random numbers
Again, good point. But iirc he's had this ability (seeing numbers as shapes) since his injury as a kid. I don't know that he'd be lying about this but he could be unaware that the correlation between numers and shapes is his own construction and not what's happening 'naturally.'
What he does is amazing no matter how he does it. The "how" of course is just as interesting too.
His memory/ability (however its nature may be) would be useful in a bio/ID perspective though, no? Just with the jargon alone.
Comment by Rob R. — March 7, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
March 7th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
I think this quote imputes some sort of mystical perception to Tammet; you might as well say that a person with a photographic memory should be able to recall the view from the peak of Mt. Everest without having been there. He's still going to have to have seen what pi looks like (the landscape) and observe its topography even if he uses that alone and doesn't focus on the numbers themselves. Notice that when he used his memory skills on the chess board, he converted the pieces to numbers, and so he would have to see the numbers and correlate them with the "landscape".
Comment by thechristiancynic — March 7, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
March 8th, 2007 at 1:09 am
Douglas wrote:
Hi Douglas,
I don't think you're giving them enough credit. Ramachandran, for instance, is very aware of the issue you raise, and has developed several tests which distinguish true synesthesia from a prodigious memory.
One of them is a "pop-out" test, similar in concept to those colored-dot tests we've all taken at the optometrist which are used to diagnose color blindness. You can't use your memory to succeed at Ramachandran's test — you have to be a true number-color synesthete.
I'll see if I can dig up some online references for these tests.
Comment by keiths — March 8, 2007 @ 1:09 am
March 8th, 2007 at 1:52 am
Here's an excellent article on the subject by Ramachandran and his colleague Ed Hubbard.
Comment by keiths — March 8, 2007 @ 1:52 am
March 8th, 2007 at 2:01 am
And here is a summary of an article describing Ramachandran's testing of Daniel Tammet.
Comment by keiths — March 8, 2007 @ 2:01 am
March 8th, 2007 at 9:28 am
keiths:
In Richard Cytowic's book The Man Who Tasted Shapes he documents several standard tests he has used. In one instance the dramatic alteration of blood flow to the processing regions during a synesthetic percept presented the strange result that the subject should have been rendered unconscious!
…which he was not, of course. Actually, many synesthetes see numbers (and sometimes letters or words) in color. Which could help explain how Tammet extends these to 'landscapes' as a way of memory-encoding them. Most functioning synesthetes have exceptional memorization skills. So a test for prodigious memory wouldn't establish anything about whether or not Tammet has 'real' synesthesia.
I was short on rote requirements my senior year in high school (having too much fun not studying), and put 'em off to the very last minute. So I memorized the entirety of Beowulf one night. Performed 50-minute segments the next day in both English Lit and drama (could have done the whole tale, but it would have taken longer than I had), aced the courses. It was a fair translation from Old English unreadable gibberish to something semi-understandable of course, maintaining metrics.
Poetry's easy because of its metrics, and so long as the specific form and the themes follow, encoding 'triggers' isn't hard. I can see how a sequence of colored numbers could suggest certain scenes - which are easy to recall from the right-brain - and which then can be 'read' for the specific sequences encoded into them.
Promptly forgot Beowulf because it was taking up room - data-dumps conserve long-term memory for more important things. Because synesthetes don't have the compartmentalized, automatic skills 'normal' people have per their interaction with the world by the time they can remember anything at all, we have to master what we do have and make it work for us.
I've always viewed it as using a tool, finding ways to make it do what you tell it to do. Probably why I was so resistant to "User Friendly" when the Macs took over from straight numbers-programming in publishing. The whole idea of a tool talking back to a user just infuriated me!
Got over it eventually… §;o)
Comment by Joy — March 8, 2007 @ 9:28 am
March 8th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Ok one more dumb question and I'll get out of the way… promise.
Daniel T. says that he isn't doing the math, or performing some short-cut/math trick, to arrive at his answers (specifically when doing square roots). Instead he sees two, or more, numbers as shapes and in his mind's eye they merge into a new shape which is the answer… I've got the jist of it, correct?
The reason I thought Douglas made a good point about studying pi prior to reciting the sequence from memory was: Wouldn't he just have to divide 22['s shape] by 7['s] to arrive at his answer, without prior study/knowledge of the answer/sequence?
I realize when it comes to neuro, or any scientific discipline, I'm talking about issues WAY over my head.. but never-the-less.
PS,
This blog is GREAT I've been lurking for quite awhile (over a year) and the critics are as good as anywhere on the web, with the exception of maybe ISCID. Knowledgeable and civil… my goodness, [i]civil.[/i] Whodathunkit.
UcD has had some good ones but the resident blog nazi doesn't give 'em any room. NO POST FOR YOU! The Coulture worship and GW crapola doesn't help either.
Anyway… nice place you've got here and thanks for indulging this layman.
Regards,
Rob
Comment by Rob R. — March 8, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
March 8th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Rob R. wrote:
Hi Rob,
I don't know how Tammet does square roots, but the Ramachandran article says this about how he does multiplication:
Rob again:
No, because 22/7 is only a convenient approximation to the true value of pi. Tammet was reciting the actual digits of pi itself, not the approximation.
Here's the difference:
3.1428571428571… = 22/7
3.1415926535897… = pi
——————————-
0.0012644892673… = 22/7 - pi
As you can see, the approximation is only off by a little more than a tenth of one percent, which is good enough for most everyday purposes.
I hope you won't be shy about commenting at TT. Everyone learns new stuff here, with this thread being an excellent example.
Yes, Herr Scot seems not to realize how much more interesting a blog is when there's some give-and-take between proponents and critics. That, or he's simply afraid of having his own shallow understanding exposed, and his fragile ego punctured, by informed criticism.
I disagree (often) with ID supporters on this blog, as you know already if you've been lurking here for a while, but I will say this: folks here are not afraid of dissent, and they understand that you can't be a credible advocate for a position unless you're willing to expose your views to criticism. That makes TT a much more interesting place than Uncommon Descent.
Bill Dembski doesn't seem to realize how much credibility UD has lost since DaveScot has been in charge. Either that, or he doesn't care anymore. Nowadays even most of the ID supporters I communicate with are shaking their heads (figuratively) over UD's decline.
Comment by keiths — March 8, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
March 8th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
keith,
I myself left UD some days ago (but not due to Dave Scot, or Bill Dembski - rather, due to the behavior of a particular "member" there, which seemed indicative of the site, or at least a lack of concern [if not awareness]).
Comment by Douglas — March 8, 2007 @ 7:46 pm
April 6th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
I can't help wondering what imagery Daniel associates with Biblically significant numbers. We heard about 1,2,5,6, and 9. I'm wondering about 3,4,7,10,12, 144, and 666.
Comment by Bilbo — April 6, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
April 6th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
From the 60 minutes programs:
"289 is a very ugly number."
"Pi is one of the most beautiful numbers in all the world."
Comment by Bilbo — April 6, 2007 @ 6:43 pm
June 21st, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Joy
re; synethesia
Interesting. My maternal grandmother could pick a handful of 4-leaf clovers in seconds where I'd spend minutes just finding a single one because they all looked the same to me. She didn't say how she did it but I saw it done so can't contest it. This was almost 50 years ago and I haven't thought about it in about that long. Now that my curiosity is piqued I'll have to google it.
Comment by DaveScot — June 21, 2008 @ 6:47 pm