If I were the CEO of a chip company looking to court one of the most successful PC makers to use my processors, I probably wouldn't do so with a comment like this:
Which probably indicates that AMD has resigned itself to !Dell for a decent period into the future.
This would help explain near-death experiences where the person who is clinically brain-dead can have experiences during this dead period.
What?
A person who is brain-dead doesn't come back. You meant a person who is temporarily diagnosed as dead, based on lack of pulse.
Near-death experiences can be summoned, almost by will. Slip someone a dose of 3mg/kg ketamine HCl without their knowledge. When their trips ends, tell them you thought they had died, they'll categorize their trip as a "near-death" experience. Their descriptions will also be pretty similar to those who were technically near death.
Unless you are willing to accept an adequately performing Eliza equivalent as proof, you'll never know.
Besides, the question has already been answered - No. It's just that most people don't accept it. If someone comes up with something that suggests the answer is Yes, it will be considered 'answered' (in the contemporary ethos), and there will be naysayers to the affirmative answer, as well. However, remember that social consensus doesn't dictate truth.
Both skills(implicit memory engrams) and declarative memories(what you normally call memory) both use up resources of a finite cortex. It just stands to reason that excess use by one type dampens the other.
You meant that neuronal oscillation could go as fast as 200 Hz!
Most of your neurons certainly don't fire at a mean rate of 200 Hz. In fact, when you're actively concentration, your EEG readings show brain waves at 30+ Hz. In fact, trains of 200 Hz firings are called 'fast ripples'. That itself gives you a clue that 200 is not the norm.
When people talk about "intelligence" they usually mean something like "being able to grasp two deep concepts and put them together"... not remember 4 spots of light.
Granted, I have seen a correlation between people who are capable of remembering 10 digit codes and intelligence... but I've also seen many of those same types fail when tasked with the above sorts of questions.
I'm currently reading Kandel & Squire's Memory. Having a too-good memory is what you don't want. They relate the case of a hyperretentive memorist from Russia, who had almost supernatural retention skills, but was hopeless at appreciating metaphors, or pattern matching or generalizations. Which are the building blocks of analytical intelligence.
Anyway, this is just the "visuospatial sketchpad" as the authors call it. There's also the phonological loop dealing with meaningful sounds, among other types of working memory. So this isn't the be-all and end-all of even immediate memory.
1)You probably meant 'too' in "one to many". Anyway, the comma is meant to indicate a break. Since I started the sentence with "So", there's a verbal pause after "So" and before "their". The comma signifies that.
2)About starting a sentence with "But", I'll agree that it's best avoided. But (*LOL*), it's commonplace enough that I shouldn't have to worry about it.
3)Plural of 'work' is 'work' and 'works'. The first one, when the word refers to the concept of working, and the second one, when refering to a set of particular work products (like a collection of novels: his works).
Actually, virtually all Indians have a native language other than English. SO, their exposure to English is actually via the written text. Newspapers, magazines, textbooks...etc Barring formal conversations in school, Indian kids* don't speak English. But all of their homeworks and exams are answered in English. So, their grasp of the written form, is adequate.
*I'm only refering to the urban middle-class segment.
Granted they learn better, but they also know much less.
Coz they haven't spent that much time alive. In the same period, the child more richly stimulated, will know and learn more.
How do we know that reduction isn't part of "knowing"?
Clarify this. Doesn't make much sense to me right now.
Also, how do we know the brain isn't wired so that it's specifically designed to learn and adapt as a child and not do so as you grow up
Coz growing up is a cultural concept. You learn and adapt all the time, till old age. Just not as well, when an adult.
Obviously, the key isn't the number of synapses, but how they connect and relate.
The second part is exactly why your first part is false. The neurons are the constituents, the synapses are their connectors. More synapses = more neural paths.
Yes, a child should have rich mentally stimulating environment because we know that they have much to learn and adapt to so they shouldn't over adapt yet.
That's tangential. The first 3 years are crucial because that's when the basic template gets carved in. Once this crucial window is past, it's much difficult to "learn" some things. The second landmark is lateralization of brain function (for language - Broca/Wernicke's areas in left hemisphere). There are plenty of examples in neuroscience textbooks about feral children ("raised" in wild) who are rescued early as 5 yrs old, yet can't successfully learn beyond rudimentary language.
But are there studies showing correlations between more synapses and being smarter in adults?
Not directly. But kids (with 2x/3x the synapses) learn languages (and just about anything else) much better and quicker than adults. One of the prominent (and biologically plausible) theories of cognitive science is the connectionist approach. And those connections are the synapses.
How do we know that "losing it" doesn't make us smarter? maybe it's a form of search tree pruning and learning heuristics as we grow. Maybe the trick is pruning the right ones.
Simply because, at any given time, the brain only prunes those synapses which don't get excited by the current environment. It doesn't anticipate what paths are optimum for novel situations, so there can't be any "pruning the right ones" (a dull environment might prune synapses which could have been potentially useful 6 years later). Which is why it is emphasized that a child should have a rich mentally stimulating environment during their first 3 years.
Slashdot Mirror
If I were the CEO of a chip company looking to court one of the most successful PC makers to use my processors, I probably wouldn't do so with a comment like this:
Which probably indicates that AMD has resigned itself to !Dell for a decent period into the future.
Who pays for "studies" like this?
Well, this study may be biased, but this book doesn't seem so.
Sure thing, I'll need your credit card number and expiration date first.
Actually, it does. I was being idealistic, and referring to true logical automatons.
This would help explain near-death experiences where the person who is clinically brain-dead can have experiences during this dead period.
What?
A person who is brain-dead doesn't come back. You meant a person who is temporarily diagnosed as dead, based on lack of pulse.
Near-death experiences can be summoned, almost by will. Slip someone a dose of 3mg/kg ketamine HCl without their knowledge. When their trips ends, tell them you thought they had died, they'll categorize their trip as a "near-death" experience. Their descriptions will also be pretty similar to those who were technically near death.
Unless you are willing to accept an adequately performing Eliza equivalent as proof, you'll never know.
Besides, the question has already been answered - No. It's just that most people don't accept it. If someone comes up with something that suggests the answer is Yes, it will be considered 'answered' (in the contemporary ethos), and there will be naysayers to the affirmative answer, as well. However, remember that social consensus doesn't dictate truth.
(for first_book=SUCCESS; current_book!=FAILURE; current_book=rehash(prior_book)}
Tourette Syndrome.
Here it is causation for a very simple reason.
Both skills(implicit memory engrams) and declarative memories(what you normally call memory) both use up resources of a finite cortex. It just stands to reason that excess use by one type dampens the other.
I'd rather doubt that good retention and poor pattern matching are necessarily related
They aren't. Excessive retention and poor pattern-matching are. Skills and explicit memories, both require cortical resources, which is finite.
From the press release:
This transaction may not occur or may occur on terms substantially different from those described in this press release.
Will Alias management agree?
You meant that neuronal oscillation could go as fast as 200 Hz!
Most of your neurons certainly don't fire at a mean rate of 200 Hz. In fact, when you're actively concentration, your EEG readings show brain waves at 30+ Hz. In fact, trains of 200 Hz firings are called 'fast ripples'. That itself gives you a clue that 200 is not the norm.
I don't think we disagree.
The original poster was referring to "remembering 10 digit numbers". I assumed that meant over a period of time.
Things are stored in immediate working memory for upto 30 seconds, if not actively rehearsed.
It'a joke but wrongly applied.
These researchers have targetted the visual cache, not the phonological loop. So your verbal memory is safe.
I think that the 'having too good of a memory' meme is a fallacy propagated by those that want to justify not having good retention.
I think the '"too good" memory is a fallacy' meme is a fallacy propagated by those who don't like what the original meme implies about them.
Seriously, insteading of attacking strawmen, apply your intelligence to argue. Oh, wait a minute...
(j/k)
When people talk about "intelligence" they usually mean something like "being able to grasp two deep concepts and put them together" ... not remember 4 spots of light.
... but I've also seen many of those same types fail when tasked with the above sorts of questions.
Indeed. Intelligent people would be those who are excellent at conceptual blending. List of resources on this page.
Granted, I have seen a correlation between people who are capable of remembering 10 digit codes and intelligence
I'm currently reading Kandel & Squire's Memory.
Having a too-good memory is what you don't want. They relate the case of a hyperretentive memorist from Russia, who had almost supernatural retention skills, but was hopeless at appreciating metaphors, or pattern matching or generalizations. Which are the building blocks of analytical intelligence.
I'm reading Kandel & Squire's Memory.
Wonderful book.
Anyway, this is just the "visuospatial sketchpad" as the authors call it. There's also the phonological loop dealing with meaningful sounds, among other types of working memory. So this isn't the be-all and end-all of even immediate memory.
I think the sins of the news media today are mostly ones of omission, rather than active misinformation.
Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, Jack Kelly: HA HA HA!!!
Instead, take the time to study things that are interesting and really mind-expanding like literature, philosophy, and languages.
./
Sounds sarcastic but can't be too sure on
Anyway, (theoretical) CompSci can be mind-expanding, just like linguistics or philosophy.
1)You probably meant 'too' in "one to many". Anyway, the comma is meant to indicate a break. Since I started the sentence with "So", there's a verbal pause after "So" and before "their". The comma signifies that.
2)About starting a sentence with "But", I'll agree that it's best avoided. But (*LOL*), it's commonplace enough that I shouldn't have to worry about it.
3)Plural of 'work' is 'work' and 'works'. The first one, when the word refers to the concept of working, and the second one, when refering to a set of particular work products (like a collection of novels: his works).
What's wrong with it?
Some examples, perhaps?
Me type god Englis
Actually, virtually all Indians have a native language other than English. SO, their exposure to English is actually via the written text. Newspapers, magazines, textbooks...etc Barring formal conversations in school, Indian kids* don't speak English. But all of their homeworks and exams are answered in English. So, their grasp of the written form, is adequate.
*I'm only refering to the urban middle-class segment.
Granted they learn better, but they also know much less.
Coz they haven't spent that much time alive. In the same period, the child more richly stimulated, will know and learn more.
How do we know that reduction isn't part of "knowing"?
Clarify this. Doesn't make much sense to me right now.
Also, how do we know the brain isn't wired so that it's specifically designed to learn and adapt as a child and not do so as you grow up
Coz growing up is a cultural concept. You learn and adapt all the time, till old age. Just not as well, when an adult.
Obviously, the key isn't the number of synapses, but how they connect and relate.
The second part is exactly why your first part is false. The neurons are the constituents, the synapses are their connectors. More synapses = more neural paths.
Yes, a child should have rich mentally stimulating environment because we know that they have much to learn and adapt to so they shouldn't over adapt yet.
That's tangential. The first 3 years are crucial because that's when the basic template gets carved in. Once this crucial window is past, it's much difficult to "learn" some things. The second landmark is lateralization of brain function (for language - Broca/Wernicke's areas in left hemisphere). There are plenty of examples in neuroscience textbooks about feral children ("raised" in wild) who are rescued early as 5 yrs old, yet can't successfully learn beyond rudimentary language.
But are there studies showing correlations between more synapses and being smarter in adults?
Not directly. But kids (with 2x/3x the synapses) learn languages (and just about anything else) much better and quicker than adults. One of the prominent (and biologically plausible) theories of cognitive science is the connectionist approach. And those connections are the synapses.
How do we know that "losing it" doesn't make us smarter? maybe it's a form of search tree pruning and learning heuristics as we grow. Maybe the trick is pruning the right ones.
Simply because, at any given time, the brain only prunes those synapses which don't get excited by the current environment. It doesn't anticipate what paths are optimum for novel situations, so there can't be any "pruning the right ones" (a dull environment might prune synapses which could have been potentially useful 6 years later). Which is why it is emphasized that a child should have a rich mentally stimulating environment during their first 3 years.