> Would that include bringing himself into existence?
Again, yes and no. What I think is that everybody`s got the same potential for anything. Something different is the fact that everybody`s brain works a different way, and everybody`s personality affects that as well.
For instance, a person with good concentration would be a wonderful chef, or a wonderful pianist, or a wonderful writer imo, whatever they choose, they`d do it, more than a person without good concentration, even if they both practice equal. Matter of taste more than "god-given pre-disposition"
Now, there are some minimal physic factors (e.g. the length of the fingers and their flexibility, something rather anatomical) but imo they don`T affect more than 1%.
Of course I don`t just mean concentration, also dedication, etc. As I said, I don`t believe in talent, but that`s just an opinion. As much as it hasn`t ever scientifically proved to exist. I can`t give credit 100% to Brian (or anyone) for what they achieve, of course. Perhaps his mom made him invent short stories as a kid and that`s why he developed such creativity from such an early age, etc.
> how do you explain Mozart, for example, who was able to perform keyboard works he heard his sister playing without ever having studied or practiced at all?
Mozart is considered a giften kid. Then when he turned 14 he wasn`t anymore. Now he was a gifted teenager. Now, that`s something else.. imHo there`s no such thing as a "genius" either. Wolfgang Amadeus probably had his brain working in a different way, like those "weird children" you mention, who somehow can paint a landscape exactly the same just looking at it once during a minute, etc, etc. Apparently they`ve got some part of the brain "blocked" and they don`t focus in one detail, instead they see/hear it all. Why did he end up that way? I dunno, thousands of possible factors again. Everything makes a difference, from the food you eat to the nurse rhymes you listen.
> How do you explain a kid like Tiger Woods? Superior hand-eye coordination from an early age.
Now that part is, as I said, probably (for minimal extent though) affected by anatomical factors imo. I don`t know, some chromosome of him worked differently or something... but just likewise, imo he could have developed that from his childhood in some sort of way we`ll never know. Perhaps he shuffled cards or anything ... just, again, I agree to disagree. I`ve got my own way of thinking about that and I don`t mean to make anyone change their mind, as well as I won`t change mine.
> Brian obviously had an amazing analytical mind early on (figuring out parts of Buddy Holly records), and that's a big part of his talent as an arranger. How would he practice that?
Like you said, figuring out parts of the records. Practice makes the master. Kids can learn anything. If he started doing it early on, then it`d be easy for him to keep doing it and eventually he could, for instance, listen to a choir and make a transcription or whatever. But it does have a logical explanation and is ... well, that.
TTFN
Ah yes... the everlasting question of nature vs. nurture.
Why does it have to be one or the other? Sebastian makes excellent points about how saying somebody has talent is kind of making an excuse for their skill...
But again... there IS such a thing as talent, IF you define it correctly: talent is nothing more and nothing less than a seed full of POTENTIAL for greatness.
My sister is incapable of holding a tune and doesn't have a feel for music. I on the other hand taught myself to play the piano w/ out ANY help when I was 10. I have talent for music where she does not... but it only means I have the potential.
As Sebastian said, If one doesn't focus and work hard, then your talent doesn't really exhist. BUT if my sister and I were to both learn an instrument