Young kids have roughly double to triple the synapses as an adult. The synapses get pruned due to lack of use. So your "stimulate the senses" is good advice, which is another way of saying Use It or Lose It. In the same vein, getting more neurons and increasing firing rate might help. It's certainly not automatically a false cure.
whether you believe that any significant insight comes in chemical form.
Are you a dualist? If not, your "experience" and "skills" are a matter of chemicals and connections. If you're referring to psychedelics like LSD (which I think you are), all they do is disrupt regular circuits. Any "insights" are a result of experiencing and processing those altered states. If you're unconscious and given LSD, you won't get any "insights". It's not the chemical that provides the insight (or even enables it, except in a technical sense).
A Beowulf cluster of these super brainy rats, hopped up on choline, taking the jobs AWAY from the Indians and bringing them back to the USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!
Unlikely, India's overpopulated in terms of rats as well. Still cheaper.
Fair trade is about opportunity, not privilege. The original OP had complaints about "less pay". That makes as much sense as an Indian middle-class worker complaining about living below the poverty line ($14000)
Mostly because nobody is able to see any reason for the government to keep it a secret. Thus there can't be a conspiracy.
But the government has access to much more information and analysis than outsiders do. You can try to pin motives on the government and then judge those motives not worthwhile, but you don't know what motives they might have. It comes down to faith.
Re:Intelligence is memory. Intelligence != memory.
on
The Memory Masters
·
· Score: 1
You can change the definition of memory, but then you'll need a new word for what everyone but you (including Eric Kandel ) calls memory.
It is true that the contemporary scope of what memory constitutes, has changed in academia while the connotations for the layman remain the same. So, in layman terms, memory is not intelligence. But words and languages aren't static. I just wanted to emphasize that there is no underlying structural difference between declarative memory and "skills and tools" that shape a person's intelligence. Intelligence is a measure. So far, that measure is defined in terms of externally observed results in tasks. Recalling a phone number is considered a different skill than multiplying two numbers (and in conventional schema, they are different) but ultimately, their underlying nature is the same.
Re:Correlation between memory and intelligence?
on
The Memory Masters
·
· Score: 1
Intelligence uses memory as a tool. It is not memory. Repeat after me: Intelligence is not memory!
Intelligence is memory. Damn, my memory failed me on what to repeat. I'm not smart enough.
Again, you're confused as to what I said. The fundamental tools at the neural level are the same for all people (almost all, I guess), but HOW it's used depends on what you store. Intelligence is a measure of how well your computational tools function and NOT just the presence of computational tools. And that aspect is critically dependent on memory. So intelligence is memory. If I present a number sequence, say, 2-3-5-7-11-13, to two students and ask them to guess the next number, the student who has the memory of the concept of prime numbers will make a guess which conforms to what we accept as the most valid answer. You can only recognise patterns which you have encountered before. An 8-month old infant has close to 1,000 trillion synapses. By age 15, that number's half and remains stable thereafter. The reduction occurs due to pruning synapses along neural routes which aren't excited. Guess what? @0 years down the line, when you trying to figure out something about a situation, the neural pathways which are long-term potentiated (strengthened due to past experience, umm, memory) are the ones activated. In other words, use it or lose it. The routes which are used, are the memories.
If that were true, there would be no such thing as creativity.
Wrong. You're mixing up the products of creativity with the nature of the process itself. Creativity is not randomness. You take existing concepts, deduce mappings and form and reapply them elsewhere. Hence, you need existing concepts, and the memory of what a mapping and form is, and the memories of the relevant mappings and forms, in order to recognise them. The ability of how to reapply these metaphorically is also a learnt skill (e.g. wheels are immediately critical to a car moving, what's immediately critical to a plane flying?. You don't confuse role of wings on a plane as analogous to a steering wheel on a car.)
BTW, I'm pretty un-PC. I'm not arguing all of us are equally intelligent or could be.
but does it ever occur to you that the "sciences" of psych, soc, and neurochem are converging on metaphysics
I'm not sure why you lump neurochem as pseudoscience. I assume you meant neuropsychology (as opposed to neurobiology). Anyway, the reasons why psychology has a bad name, among other things, are behaviourism and Freudian psychoanalysis. The first grossly oversimplified learning and reaction, and the second was just wrong. But psychology as shaped by cognitive science, is on firmer ground. I can't comment on sociology.
Re:Correlation between memory and intelligence?
on
The Memory Masters
·
· Score: 1
But it's still - from what I read of the reviews - speculation.
Everything is speculation. Science. Religion. No one "knows" anything except that "I" exist.
But these guys are cognitive scientists and their basic theory's been around 12-15 years now. Once you get the book, check the bibliography to note subsequently written books by other authors that help explain music, mathematics among other things.
I still think that the ability to invent is not a function of memory
You're mixing up things. The ability to invent is decidedly not memory. The scope and depth that determines how well that ability functions, is based on implicit and explicit memory. The 6 yr old kid doing arithmetic is using the same fundamental mental operations that the 33 yr old math genius is using. But the genius due to a good and rich stimulated experience (read as memory) has built up more sophisticated blends of these fundamental tools. That sophistication is stored up synaptically, in the same way that memory is stored. And it is "recalled" when performing the latest analysis, thus eligible to be called memory.
Re:Correlation between memory and intelligence?
on
The Memory Masters
·
· Score: 1
An invention, be it scientific (Galileo), musical (Bach), etc, can be built on previous work (memory) but has a distinctiveness all it's own.
Re:Correlation between memory and intelligence?
on
The Memory Masters
·
· Score: 1
No one can deny the importance of memorization. But there are so many factors to intelligence.
Nope, intelligence is memory. Your objection limits what is considered memory. You are restricting memory to objects and treating functions("utilization of data") as something else. But the functions themselves, are memories. You need to store the function neurally, in order to execute it later on in life.
Re:Correlation between memory and intelligence?
on
The Memory Masters
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
You bring up the usual objection.
However, you're limiting memory to declarative memory (where's my keys?, who's that girl?, what movie was that dialogue from?). But your skills are themselves (implicit) memories. You learn when young, something like language. You can construct proper grammatical and meaningful sentences later in life, only because your brain remembers what it learnt earlier.
Not all types of memory.
on
The Memory Masters
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
In Schacter's memory book, an anecdote is presented about the 1999 National Memory Champion. She commented that she relied on post-its to get through the day.
It's not really ironic because memory competitions test how transient your memory focus is. Post-Its help those with attentional problems of memory.
In other words, these memory champions don't have all-around good memory skills.
Comcast wasn't interested in making Disney a stronger company, only to milk the Disney company of it's properties and eventually spin it off once it becomes unprofitable again.
Waugh: The whole point of the patent system is that they're supposed to be obvious things. But there are a lot of things in computing that are unobvious to a point
Umm, isn't it the opposite? Only those insights and ideas which are "non-obvious".
Slashdot Mirror
Young kids have roughly double to triple the synapses as an adult. The synapses get pruned due to lack of use. So your "stimulate the senses" is good advice, which is another way of saying Use It or Lose It. In the same vein, getting more neurons and increasing firing rate might help. It's certainly not automatically a false cure.
whether you believe that any significant insight comes in chemical form.
Are you a dualist? If not, your "experience" and "skills" are a matter of chemicals and connections. If you're referring to psychedelics like LSD (which I think you are), all they do is disrupt regular circuits. Any "insights" are a result of experiencing and processing those altered states. If you're unconscious and given LSD, you won't get any "insights". It's not the chemical that provides the insight (or even enables it, except in a technical sense).
A Beowulf cluster of these super brainy rats, hopped up on choline, taking the jobs AWAY from the Indians and bringing them back to the USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!
Unlikely, India's overpopulated in terms of rats as well. Still cheaper.
Fair trade is about opportunity, not privilege. The original OP had complaints about "less pay". That makes as much sense as an Indian middle-class worker complaining about living below the poverty line ($14000)
The problem with this viewpoint is that, if one were to really subscribe to it, there would be no point in making plans. No reason to even live;
Well, it's only a "problem" because you're already biased against it.
This is not a very practical viewpoint, nor one compatible with our biology or psychology -- we inherently use past events to predict future results.
But, it could only seem that way.
Mostly because nobody is able to see any reason for the government to keep it a secret. Thus there can't be a conspiracy.
But the government has access to much more information and analysis than outsiders do. You can try to pin motives on the government and then judge those motives not worthwhile, but you don't know what motives they might have. It comes down to faith.
they are considered scientific fact because of the wealth of evidence supporting them
And how do you decide if the evidence "supports" the theories?
Whatever's counted as scientific 'fact' today is also due to consensus.
If you're a patient, check ChoiceTrust.
You can change the definition of memory, but then you'll need a new word for what everyone but you (including Eric Kandel ) calls memory.
It is true that the contemporary scope of what memory constitutes, has changed in academia while the connotations for the layman remain the same. So, in layman terms, memory is not intelligence. But words and languages aren't static. I just wanted to emphasize that there is no underlying structural difference between declarative memory and "skills and tools" that shape a person's intelligence. Intelligence is a measure. So far, that measure is defined in terms of externally observed results in tasks. Recalling a phone number is considered a different skill than multiplying two numbers (and in conventional schema, they are different) but ultimately, their underlying nature is the same.
Intelligence uses memory as a tool. It is not memory. Repeat after me: Intelligence is not memory!
Intelligence is memory. Damn, my memory failed me on what to repeat. I'm not smart enough.
Again, you're confused as to what I said. The fundamental tools at the neural level are the same for all people (almost all, I guess), but HOW it's used depends on what you store. Intelligence is a measure of how well your computational tools function and NOT just the presence of computational tools. And that aspect is critically dependent on memory. So intelligence is memory. If I present a number sequence, say, 2-3-5-7-11-13, to two students and ask them to guess the next number, the student who has the memory of the concept of prime numbers will make a guess which conforms to what we accept as the most valid answer. You can only recognise patterns which you have encountered before. An 8-month old infant has close to 1,000 trillion synapses. By age 15, that number's half and remains stable thereafter. The reduction occurs due to pruning synapses along neural routes which aren't excited. Guess what? @0 years down the line, when you trying to figure out something about a situation, the neural pathways which are long-term potentiated (strengthened due to past experience, umm, memory) are the ones activated. In other words, use it or lose it. The routes which are used, are the memories.
If that were true, there would be no such thing as creativity.
Wrong. You're mixing up the products of creativity with the nature of the process itself. Creativity is not randomness. You take existing concepts, deduce mappings and form and reapply them elsewhere. Hence, you need existing concepts, and the memory of what a mapping and form is, and the memories of the relevant mappings and forms, in order to recognise them. The ability of how to reapply these metaphorically is also a learnt skill (e.g. wheels are immediately critical to a car moving, what's immediately critical to a plane flying?. You don't confuse role of wings on a plane as analogous to a steering wheel on a car.)
BTW, I'm pretty un-PC. I'm not arguing all of us are equally intelligent or could be.
but does it ever occur to you that the "sciences" of psych, soc, and neurochem are converging on metaphysics
I'm not sure why you lump neurochem as pseudoscience. I assume you meant neuropsychology (as opposed to neurobiology). Anyway, the reasons why psychology has a bad name, among other things, are behaviourism and Freudian psychoanalysis. The first grossly oversimplified learning and reaction, and the second was just wrong. But psychology as shaped by cognitive science, is on firmer ground. I can't comment on sociology.
But it's still - from what I read of the reviews - speculation.
Everything is speculation. Science. Religion. No one "knows" anything except that "I" exist.
But these guys are cognitive scientists and their basic theory's been around 12-15 years now. Once you get the book, check the bibliography to note subsequently written books by other authors that help explain music, mathematics among other things.
I still think that the ability to invent is not a function of memory
You're mixing up things. The ability to invent is decidedly not memory. The scope and depth that determines how well that ability functions, is based on implicit and explicit memory. The 6 yr old kid doing arithmetic is using the same fundamental mental operations that the 33 yr old math genius is using. But the genius due to a good and rich stimulated experience (read as memory) has built up more sophisticated blends of these fundamental tools. That sophistication is stored up synaptically, in the same way that memory is stored. And it is "recalled" when performing the latest analysis, thus eligible to be called memory.
An invention, be it scientific (Galileo), musical (Bach), etc, can be built on previous work (memory) but has a distinctiveness all it's own.
The Way We Think
No one can deny the importance of memorization. But there are so many factors to intelligence.
Nope, intelligence is memory. Your objection limits what is considered memory. You are restricting memory to objects and treating functions("utilization of data") as something else. But the functions themselves, are memories. You need to store the function neurally, in order to execute it later on in life.
This is a good introductory book on memory.
You bring up the usual objection.
However, you're limiting memory to declarative memory (where's my keys?, who's that girl?, what movie was that dialogue from?). But your skills are themselves (implicit) memories. You learn when young, something like language. You can construct proper grammatical and meaningful sentences later in life, only because your brain remembers what it learnt earlier.
In Schacter's memory book, an anecdote is presented about the 1999 National Memory Champion. She commented that she relied on post-its to get through the day.
It's not really ironic because memory competitions test how transient your memory focus is. Post-Its help those with attentional problems of memory.
In other words, these memory champions don't have all-around good memory skills.
In the end, what is the value of an uninformed vote?
George W. Bush will be happy to tell you.
I mean, possibly any sci-fi book is at least 34 times better than STAR WARS.
34? Damn, I had my money on 19.5
Well, all the bugs are real. There is no escape.
Evolution is survive of the fittest, do minor changes in different direction on an existing system and let see which one will lead closer to success.
Umm, no.
In evolutionary terms, 'fittest' are those who survive. There is no objective definition of 'fittest' independent of survival.
Comcast wasn't interested in making Disney a stronger company, only to milk the Disney company of it's properties and eventually spin it off once it becomes unprofitable again.
Umm, that's the goal of any business enterprise.
Waugh: The whole point of the patent system is that they're supposed to be obvious things. But there are a lot of things in computing that are unobvious to a point
Umm, isn't it the opposite? Only those insights and ideas which are "non-obvious".
For monkey business, hop over to www.monkeyfilter.com
Touche
http://www.kongmovie.com/Kong-Full-(DivX-HS).avi.t orrent
87 megs divx
You got that the other way.
XSI 3.5 beats Maya 5.
XSI pre-2.0 sucked ass.