You can try a little "synesthesia-like" experiment with your memory. When trying to memorize a piece on the piano, do your best to try to memorize it as a poem. Associate words with notes, phrases with sequences of notes.
It's probably more of a probabilistic thing. The pathways in the pre-motor and primary motor cortex which correspond to typing a keyword are going to be heavily reinforced since you use them so much. When you begin a sequence of characters similar to this keyword, there's a high probability that neural connections will lead down the mostly heavily reinforced neural pathway.
Only later, when you receive feedback via your eyes or your conscious thought do you realize that this most common branch was an error, and you have to correct it. This time you type much more slowly and deliberately (with more focus), allowing you to type the correct, uncommon sequence of characters.
"Muscle memory" is in the brain, it's just likely that in resides in a different part of the brain than "normal memory".
It's possible that memory of a tune resides largely in the premotor cortex or a neighboring region, since this is where you plan how you will move your muscles - for instance, how to move your fingers to play a melody, or control your vocal chords/tongue to sing a song.
This leads to the interesting situation where you may remember how to play a song perfectly, but you cannot remember the name of the song. This is also why you remember the words to a song much more easily if you actually sing it. If you try to recite the words to a song without actually "going through the motions" of the melody, it's quite difficult, if not impossible.
If you get a chance, you should try inquiring further into what your Grandfather can remember. If he remembers a song, does he remember the name of it, who taught it to him, where he first played it, etc? Or is the song simply a motor memory that has lost its association with other types of memory?
IAANS (I Am A NeuroScientist... albeit a computational one who does mostly programming).
I don't really think it is Marxism, since nobody is saying that private systems can't exist alongside a public one, and nobody is saying that we need to nationalize the pharmaceutical industry. We just need to regulate costs, and provide a government option that ensures everyone and anyone can get health-care.
I'm not saying that the workers should own the means of production, or that the proletariat should rise up and demand control of the government. That would be Marxism.
Anyway, Marxism and Socialism aren't dirty words or insults... so if you want to call modern liberal socialism "Marxism", be my guest.
Turn medicare over to the county government. The local government can raise taxes similar to medicare, hire doctors and run a clinics that will compete with free market doctors and provide inexpensive or free care to those who need it.
This wouldn't really work, it would just segregate the rich from the poor even more. The rich would all move to counties where they don't have to pay medical taxes, and the poor counties would be stuck trying to pay for their own medical services, which they simply can't afford.
The whole point of having the federal government do it is that it makes it so you can force the rich to help pay for the health-care of the poor. Once you get too local the rich can simply dodge their civic responsibilities by moving.
And yes, I said force the rich to help pay for the health-care of the poor. This is how it should be, the rich greatly benefit from the labor of the poor and middle-class. It's only logical that they should help keep them in good health.
I don't want to pay for the military (at least not the massive military we have), and yet I have to. If I don't pay, I get thrown in jail.
Why is paying for guns more acceptable than paying for health-care? We have a massive nuclear arsenal for deterrence, we don't need much of a regular military; no country is going to attack us.
How much money is "a whole lot"? How much is too much? So you think everyone should make the same amount of money?
No, but I have no problem with government regulating the salaries of doctors. That's not Marxist at all... the government already does it with the military, police/fire department, etc...
One doesn't have to be Marxist to believe that government regulation, oversight, and yes, even control, of something could be better than the free-market solution.
Actually, the 1 in 30 pregnancy rate is for women who are actively trying to get pregnant. It wouldn't make any sense to include women who are on birth control in that figure...
Aren't we messing with natural selection when we enable people who aren't fertile to reproduce? If their infertility is genetic, won't that mean we'll be carrying the infertility phenotype forward?
Anyway, I'd rather have a kid with "better" genotypes than my own. Also, a person is largely a product of their environment. Genetics only play so much of a role. Why not adopt a child?
I think having the taxpayer pay for expensive fertility treatments should be an option of last resort. It would make more sense to empty out all the orphanages first.
It's just an example. How can we spend $800 billion on the military and yet think that a NHS is just too expensive? The English NHS costs about 100 billion pounds a year. That means for the US a similar system would cost ~600 billion pounds, or 950 billion dollars. That's about 100 billion more than medicare/medicaid. Seems doable to me.
The cost of health-care in the US is out of control. Reform needs to happen across the board, the price of medical school, the price of drugs, the cost of procedures. Just about everything is broken, and we need radical reform to fix it.
Ugh. Go away Ayn Rand. Someone working a minimum wage job deserves health-care just as much as a millionaire CEO. I don't give a damn which one you think is a better "producer". They're both human beings, and they both deserve food, housing, health-care, equal protection under the law, etc...
I think we do have a right to healthcare, as well as food and housing, at least as long as the country can afford it. The wealthy already get to have luxuries because they're rich, why do they also get to have the necessities, like shelter, healthcare and food as well?
I also think we should cut our military budget by at least 90% before we start saying we can't afford to provide everyone with healthcare.
Not only is outward safer, but it makes it much harder to break in to the place. You can't just slam your shoulder into a door which opens outward. Well, you can, but it's not going anywhere.
Right, and it's my fault if someone starts shooting at my car, and as I panic trying to evade the bullets, I smash my car into a pedestrian.
Totally my fault for running that guy over, right?
The point of the fire meme is that you DON'T KNOW there is no imminent danger, you actually believe there is a fire, and that the fire could trap you and kill you in a very short time.
Slashdot Mirror
You can try a little "synesthesia-like" experiment with your memory. When trying to memorize a piece on the piano, do your best to try to memorize it as a poem. Associate words with notes, phrases with sequences of notes.
Only later, when you receive feedback via your eyes or your conscious thought do you realize that this most common branch was an error, and you have to correct it. This time you type much more slowly and deliberately (with more focus), allowing you to type the correct, uncommon sequence of characters.
It's theorized that song developed originally for exactly that purpose, to help with recall before the advent of writing.
It's possible that memory of a tune resides largely in the premotor cortex or a neighboring region, since this is where you plan how you will move your muscles - for instance, how to move your fingers to play a melody, or control your vocal chords/tongue to sing a song.
This leads to the interesting situation where you may remember how to play a song perfectly, but you cannot remember the name of the song. This is also why you remember the words to a song much more easily if you actually sing it. If you try to recite the words to a song without actually "going through the motions" of the melody, it's quite difficult, if not impossible.
If you get a chance, you should try inquiring further into what your Grandfather can remember. If he remembers a song, does he remember the name of it, who taught it to him, where he first played it, etc? Or is the song simply a motor memory that has lost its association with other types of memory?
IAANS (I Am A NeuroScientist... albeit a computational one who does mostly programming).
I'm not saying that the workers should own the means of production, or that the proletariat should rise up and demand control of the government. That would be Marxism.
Anyway, Marxism and Socialism aren't dirty words or insults... so if you want to call modern liberal socialism "Marxism", be my guest.
Turn medicare over to the county government. The local government can raise taxes similar to medicare, hire doctors and run a clinics that will compete with free market doctors and provide inexpensive or free care to those who need it.
This wouldn't really work, it would just segregate the rich from the poor even more. The rich would all move to counties where they don't have to pay medical taxes, and the poor counties would be stuck trying to pay for their own medical services, which they simply can't afford.
The whole point of having the federal government do it is that it makes it so you can force the rich to help pay for the health-care of the poor. Once you get too local the rich can simply dodge their civic responsibilities by moving.
And yes, I said force the rich to help pay for the health-care of the poor. This is how it should be, the rich greatly benefit from the labor of the poor and middle-class. It's only logical that they should help keep them in good health.
Why is paying for guns more acceptable than paying for health-care? We have a massive nuclear arsenal for deterrence, we don't need much of a regular military; no country is going to attack us.
How much money is "a whole lot"? How much is too much? So you think everyone should make the same amount of money?
No, but I have no problem with government regulating the salaries of doctors. That's not Marxist at all... the government already does it with the military, police/fire department, etc...
One doesn't have to be Marxist to believe that government regulation, oversight, and yes, even control, of something could be better than the free-market solution.
Actually, the 1 in 30 pregnancy rate is for women who are actively trying to get pregnant. It wouldn't make any sense to include women who are on birth control in that figure...
So, by legal definition, statutory rape is always non consensual.
Aren't we messing with natural selection when we enable people who aren't fertile to reproduce? If their infertility is genetic, won't that mean we'll be carrying the infertility phenotype forward?
Anyway, I'd rather have a kid with "better" genotypes than my own. Also, a person is largely a product of their environment. Genetics only play so much of a role. Why not adopt a child?
I think having the taxpayer pay for expensive fertility treatments should be an option of last resort. It would make more sense to empty out all the orphanages first.
If you hear voices and say they're just people, you're called a schizophrenic.
If you hear voices and say they're a supernatural being, you're called a prophet.
They need to find a new bank.
The cost of health-care in the US is out of control. Reform needs to happen across the board, the price of medical school, the price of drugs, the cost of procedures. Just about everything is broken, and we need radical reform to fix it.
How is anything I said Marxist?
Why is necessary that doctors, insurance companies, pharma companies, etc... make so much money?
Scientists don't get paid a whole lot, and yet they're still inventing things. Why couldn't doctors do the same thing?
Who said anything about not working?
That's not true. Guns can be used for defense, to overthrow a government, to hunt, etc...
Homework: Discuss how this contradicts your belief that the free market is always the best solution.
I think we do have a right to healthcare, as well as food and housing, at least as long as the country can afford it. The wealthy already get to have luxuries because they're rich, why do they also get to have the necessities, like shelter, healthcare and food as well?
I also think we should cut our military budget by at least 90% before we start saying we can't afford to provide everyone with healthcare.
I suppose you consider fertility treatments to be frivolous.
I hate to say this, but they ARE frivolous, at least when compared to other things such as cancer treatment.
Not to mention, you COULD just adopt... or do as you did, and pay for private care.
That makes sense I suppose, keeps the hinges on the inside. Thanks.
Then again, I think anyone who believes in a god needs a psychological evaluation...
Not only is outward safer, but it makes it much harder to break in to the place. You can't just slam your shoulder into a door which opens outward. Well, you can, but it's not going anywhere.
Totally my fault for running that guy over, right?
The point of the fire meme is that you DON'T KNOW there is no imminent danger, you actually believe there is a fire, and that the fire could trap you and kill you in a very short time.