Yes, I think you're probably right. I'm inclined to believe this would in fact fail completely to be true, but that's because I found myself generally convinced by Douglas Hofstadter's arguments on the subject, particularly (but not limited to) the one that said boredom was a vital part of human creativity, since it's what drives people to stop and think and find ways to make a job easier rather than mechanically continuing to do it over and over the obvious way.
Though another possibility is that you could have the different parts working together. If whenever I thought of an equation I instantly saw the solution as calculated by standard techniques by the computer part of the brain, would I be better?
I'd be a *bit* better because I'd be quicker. And I'd be better than the computer because I could experiment with *new* techniques. The question is, could I ever have the benefits of both, and be better than a human with a matlab pc? Could the quick-solver do it's thing, yet trigger the correlation-noticing part of my brain into saying "Hold up, that line three is just like the *last* line three. I can change the variable and get a standard result."
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Though another possibility is that you could have the different parts working together. If whenever I thought of an equation I instantly saw the solution as calculated by standard techniques by the computer part of the brain, would I be better?
I'd be a *bit* better because I'd be quicker. And I'd be better than the computer because I could experiment with *new* techniques. The question is, could I ever have the benefits of both, and be better than a human with a matlab pc? Could the quick-solver do it's thing, yet trigger the correlation-noticing part of my brain into saying "Hold up, that line three is just like the *last* line three. I can change the variable and get a standard result."