Where those powers of cognition vary between individuals, to the tune of 300,000:1 in cognition speed, when we go from 100 to 200 IQ. Where.. what it takes a person with 100IQ a year to cognate, a person with 200 IQ can cognate in 3 minutes. This is a theoretical calculation put forth from a member of the Prometheus society, which requires an IQ of 169 at a minimum, to become a member. There is much to show that this is hewing close to the reality, otherwise the member would not have put forth the musing.Actually there is almost 0 evidence to support this. To support this would require actual experiments with the same problem given to people of diverse IQs and the time of "cognition" to be evaluated. Because of the diverse IQs, that would require a test of exceedingly long completion time for those at the bottom. Not to mention, this is not how "IQ" even works. It is a scale of what percentage of people can achieve a score on a theoretical test, then belled with a standard deviation of 15, such that an IQ of 200 is 6.67 standard deviations above 100. While there is proof that people with high IQs neurons fire faster, and proof of higher connection density, hence passing more detailed information, the numbers above (300,000:1) are just fantasy. There have been some rough looks at speed of learning over the years, that show improvements of 10-30% per standard deviation. As well, it is supportable through evidence that a person with an IQ of 170 may solve a problem that a person with an IQ of 100 never will as they don’t have the ability to process the complexity, but that is much different from a measure of "time to understand".
p.s. I would not use a word like "cognate" unless you know what it means.
According to the calculation itself, others may take quite some time to catch up to the obviousness of the proposal of this thread... being tied up in, well, emotional reflection of internal issues when presented with the proffered data point.And here perhaps we agree, because there appears to be an attempt, based on a lack of understanding of the basic precepts of sampled data systems, to make claims that are factually not supportable. Hence some, like the author, make claims that they feel are obvious, while others, who have an understanding of the underlying science, know, instantly, that those claims are wrong. This has little to do with high IQ though. It is mainly about experience and knowledge. Higher IQ would better allow mapping of knowledge from one area onto another area. i.e. someone with high IQ that understands sampling theory, would understand that examples specific to music would not be required to illustrate timing accuracy of sample systems used for music.
Next comes the idea of hearing, and rumination via hearing.As discussed above, there is 0 evidence of a 300,000:1 range for cognition speed. Similarly, there is little evidence for any wide range of auditory capability. There is little/no evidence of anyone hearing past 20KHz. In tests of detection of time of arrival discrimination, there was no large difference between subjects, and the largest difference was related frequency range of hearing. One would expect some difference in processing complexity, just like intelligence, but that does not magically change fundamental limits such as range of frequencies heard and/or dynamic range, and it appears time of arrival discrimination. Most likely would be the ability to interpret more complexity, but not fundamentals. Smart people may be able to find something in an image faster, but they do not see the image in fundamentally more detail
the idea that It follows the same path in individuals as does basic intelligence. That the variations in hearing capacities (as a complex system) may also follow this range of at least 300,000:1 in fine resolution of brainpower tied to sensitivities.
digital audio has the whole answer and problem set put on --completely backward, or in a way that has nothing to do with how the ear works. Or, in total contrary aspect to how the ear works.This goes back to the point about "obviousness". There is no evidence of people with fundamentally superhuman hearing capability whether in dynamic range, time of arrival processing or frequency range. While they may be able to extract more information out of audio, that does not change how much information was there in the first place, which these statements are attempting to imply without providing any evidence that is the case. A better fundamental knowledge of sampled data systems would probably prevent making these inaccurate conclusions.
Digital audio makes terrific engineering and mathematical sense, but very poor sense, with regard to how the ear works. This has been covered multiple times in this thread.