People don't have limits to ability

[Queen of Hamsters]

As long as things like IQ and scientific knowledge keeps going up then clearly humanity hasn't hit any kind of limit.

And that negates the fact that individuals have limitations... how?

Actually, don't bother. I don't suffer people like you. Not sure how you got off the list.

[PC2]

And that negates the fact that individuals have limitations... how?

Turing completeness does for functional people. Again though you are free to argue that an alternative theory is correct. That's why we're here, to debate which theory is correct.

Actually, don't bother. I don't suffer people like you. Not sure how you got off the list.

Good ole Hamster putting himself back into his echo chamber.

[shadowmouse]

Again though you are free to argue that an alternative theory is correct.

Pick a horse and stay on it. One moment you are avoiding basic scientific requirements by claiming you are offering an "explanation", then the next you're back to dressing your claims up with an appeal to authority (science) and talking about theory. You aren't debating anything, you are dodging and moving the goal posts around while failing to do any kind of prove up.

OP was made in a specific context, teaching students. If your ... let's call it an idea for now ... has any practical meaning it needs to have observable, real world applications. Telling Johnny that he could "do it" if he just "tried harder" can be a motivational talk, but it easily gets turned into "you aren't succeeding, so you are just lazy and not trying hard enough." You keep dodging that humans are just that, human, and not even a computer can actually meet the kind of abstract model you're touting. Here is an example of how that goes with what others such as @Shadowferal and @Queen of Hamsters have pointed out about the real world: https://www.psychologicalscience.org...n-and-behavior

Teaching in the real world means that things like interest and resources can't just be blown off the way you do, but some jackass in administration can start spouting the kind of talk you are throwing around to justify his next round of budget fudging. The result is that students, real people living in a real world, get a label hung on them (lazy failure) that they usually start to believe, while their teachers end up trying to fill in gaps with their own resources.

[PC2]

Pick a horse and stay on it. One moment you are avoiding basic scientific requirements by claiming you are offering an "explanation", then the next you're back to dressing your claims up with an appeal to authority (science) and talking about theory. You aren't debating anything, you are dodging and moving the goal posts around while failing to do any kind of prove up.

OP was made in a specific context, teaching students. If your ... let's call it an idea for now ... has any practical meaning it needs to have observable, real world applications. Telling Johnny that he could "do it" if he just "tried harder" can be a motivational talk, but it easily gets turned into "you aren't succeeding, so you are just lazy and not trying hard enough." You keep dodging that humans are just that, human, and not even a computer can actually meet the kind of abstract model you're touting. Here is an example of how that goes with what others such as @Shadowferal and @Queen of Hamsters have pointed out about the real world: https://www.psychologicalscience.org...n-and-behavior

Teaching in the real world means that things like interest and resources can't just be blown off the way you do, but some jackass in administration can start spouting the kind of talk you are throwing around to justify his next round of budget fudging. The result is that students, real people living in a real world, get a label hung on them (lazy failure) that they usually start to believe, while their teachers end up trying to fill in gaps with their own resources.

I don't understand why you keep bringing up science. The study of the mind is inherently about a 1st person phenomenology which means it's a non-scientific discipline. Science only deals with the study of things relating to the 3rd person perspective.

Regarding learning and child raising the #1 most important factor is the cultural surrounding that the child grows up in. Especially what people they have access to and how much knowledge they have and how good they are at guiding the child through the learning process. There's no such thing as an inherently "lazy person" but people do have some form of free will so that means we can't discount 'personal effort' entirely.

[shadowmouse]

I don't understand why you keep bringing up science.

There is part of the problem. Turing didn't become famous as a cook. You think you are discussing human minds, but you don't see the roots of your assertions are in non-human models. That is something that gets discussed in the context of the Chinese Room Argument.

[Side note for anyone who wants to refresh their memory: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/]

[PC2]

There is part of the problem. Turing didn't become famous as a cook. You think you are discussing human minds, but you don't see the roots of your assertions are in non-human models.

I don't even know what this means. lol

That is something that gets discussed in the context of the Chinese Room Argument.

[Side note for anyone who wants to refresh their memory: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/]

That relates to John Searle's and Connal's position which is largely in opposition and incompatible with my position on this matter. I think the arguments don't make any sense and I don't even know how learning would work under that theory, nor how it would relate to human limitations.

[shadowmouse]

I don't even know what this means. lol
...
I don't even know how learning would work under that theory, nor how it would relate to human limitations.

Quod erat demonstrandum

[PC2]

Ummm you are doing a performative contradiction here.

That you say there is no limit, but then display that you hit a limit of understanding.

I am in that camp because I exactly understand what concept it’s trying to convey. That you can’t, seems to be a limit to your understanding. If that’s a self imposed limit, or a biological one, in either case, it’s a limit.

No, this is kind of like saying I studied astrology and I didn't fully understand it therefor I hit the limits of my understanding. There are many things you could try to learn about that are inherently nonsense and trying to glean knowledge from nonsense theories is impossible.

[pacotaco]

The manager responded with "people don't have limits, they just need to try harder".

That's utterly false. EVERYONE has limitations. Being physical, mental, ethical/moral, etc.
That phrase is the same as the abhorrent mantra "the poor are poor because they chose so".
Not everyone can be/do anything, no matter how hard they try.
You don't go to a hospital and say "hey, you don't heal because you don't try harder".
You don't say to a mentally challenged people that "if you try hard, you can go to MIT"
You don't say a tetraplegic that he can climb the Everest if he tries hard enough.

I'm starting to think that the people who really belive that phrase are idiots or psychopath

[Cosmic Janitor]

People do have limits. This is painfully obvious for anyone with a bit of life experience. Even a lack of motivation is a limit in some sense, as is time for all of us not to mention hard physical limitations. Most people probably don't reach their actual limits for any given topic, but many reach the diminishing returns of their capability within a field/topic.

[PC2]

That's utterly false. EVERYONE has limitations. Being physical, mental, ethical/moral, etc.
That phrase is the same as the abhorrent mantra "the poor are poor because they chose so".
Not everyone can be/do anything, no matter how hard they try.
You don't go to a hospital and say "hey, you don't heal because you don't try harder".
You don't say to a mentally challenged people that "if you try hard, you can go to MIT"
You don't say a tetraplegic that he can climb the Everest if he tries hard enough.

I'm starting to think that the people who really belive that phrase are idiots or psychopath

Yes for physical limits but no for mental limits. For any given subject that you talk about and try to draw a line in which a functional person could never learn anything above that line the person can always learn one more concept above that line, given enough time and effort and personal interest.

[pacotaco]

Yes for physical limits but no for mental limits. For any given subject that you talk about and try to draw a line in which a functional person could never learn anything above that line the person can always learn one more concept above that line, given enough time and effort and personal interest.

The problem is that we all ultimately work with one currency we can't get back: time. If you take too much time to learn something you're taking it from other things.

[unfilteredJW]

Watching someone so enthusiastically use themselves as proof is amazing.