Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Human brain compresses working memories into low-res ‘summaries’

directorsblog.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 349 posts

Re: Human brain compresses working memories into low-res ‘summaries’

#151

Post by robmccoll »

axg11 wrote: post #25
robmccoll wrote: post #21

The weird (scary?) point will be when we figure out how to subtly present adversarial information to the brain that will be coded in a way that collides with some target information to induce false recognition/ memories.

Read "The Mind is Flat" - your idea is a theme of the book. We already have a few examples of adversarial information for humans: optical illusions being the most widely discussed.

Wow - just watched a talk Nick Chater gave. Sounds like an interesting model for consciousness. I'll check it out. Thanks.

Re: Human brain compresses working memories into low-res ‘summaries’

#152

Post by dpierce9 »

whatshisface wrote: post #105
qq66 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One way to make this clear to yourself is to observe how much more difficult it is to "define bread" than it is to answer "is this bread?"

Bread is defined as anything I think bread is, and the same goes for any other word. To hold another position would be in some way dishonest.

This would make it impossible to share definitions (even when we both think all the same things are bread).

Re: Human brain compresses working memories into low-res ‘summaries’

#153

Post by robmccoll »

stackbutterflow wrote: post #27
robmccoll wrote: post #21

The weird (scary?) point will be when we figure out how to subtly present adversarial information to the brain that will be coded in a way that collides with some target information to induce false recognition/ memories.

So I remember reading somewhere, probably on HN, that we don't remember real facts but instead we remember our last call of a particular memory. I've hijacked some unpleasant memories that way. I'll add some colors, a round ball bouncing, all kind of stuff that'll alter the memory. It doesn't make it totally disappear but it kinda smoothen it.

Nice to know that there's an upside to this idea :-)

Re: Human brain compresses working memories into low-res ‘summaries’

#154

Post by dpierce9 »

whatshisface wrote: post #125
alanh wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not a definition :) And, by the way, a definition is not defined as whatever one thinks a definition is.

It offers a one-to-one correspondence between stimuli and classifications, what else could a definition be?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/meaning/

Re: Human brain compresses working memories into low-res ‘summaries’

#155

Post by tetsusaiga »

alanh wrote: post #114
pcthrowaway wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Give us this day our daily definition

At risk of really devolving this thread, I’m pretty sure that bodybuilders generally agree that bread is counter-productive in the pursuit of definition :)

Great, now we gotta figure out what a "bodybuilder" is!

Re: Human brain compresses working memories into low-res ‘summaries’

#156

Post by bell-cot »

This sounds much like the old "chess positions" memory test studies - in which chess masters were found to be vastly better than novices at remembering chess positions taken from actual chess games. But just as bad as the novices at remembering random (non-game-like) arrangements of the playing pieces on a chess board.

Plausibly, their years of experience had given the chess masters a far better compression dictionary - for situations within the scope of that experience.

Re: Human brain compresses working memories into low-res ‘summaries’

#157

Post by ajuc »

TameAntelope wrote: post #96

I think this is why it's hard sometimes to argue in support of something you believe, even if you're right. At one point, all of the relevant facts and figures were loaded into your working memory, and with that information you arrived at a conclusion. Your brain, however, no longer needs those facts and figures; you've gotten what you needed from them, and they can be kicked out of working memory. What you store the…

Here's article about this phenomenon: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/2MD3NMLBPCqPfnfre/cached-tho...

Re: Human brain compresses working memories into low-res ‘summaries’

#158

Post by jfk13 »

petercooper wrote: post #60
MarkusWandel wrote: post #4

It all works this way (though a certain female family member would disagree, claiming to remember conversations word-for-word years later). But my memory works this way. A summary "party at so-and-so's house, weather was nice, overall vibe was ___". The rest is context. You know what the house/backyard is like, you know the general feel of that time of year, you know the crowd that usually comes, you can easily synth…

though a certain female family member would disagree, claiming to remember conversations word-for-word years later Surely many people do. Otherwise you wouldn't have all these biographies and non-fiction books packed with conversations people have managed to recall in a level of detail enough to not get sued. I can barely remember a line of conversation from this week, let alone important ones from years ago, so I al…

I suspect many (most?) conversations in biographies and non-fiction books are not necessarily quoted verbatim. In most cases, the author may at best have had access to diaries or other notes from the time that recorded a summary of what was said, or they may have interviewed people who, years later, summarised what they recall -- more or less accurately -- being discussed.

The author may then present this in the form of quoted speech in order to make it more vivid and compelling for today's reader, but it rarely corresponds to a precise transcript of the original conversation.

Re: Human brain compresses working memories into low-res ‘summaries’

#159

Post by gregwebs »

TameAntelope wrote: post #96

I think this is why it's hard sometimes to argue in support of something you believe, even if you're right. At one point, all of the relevant facts and figures were loaded into your working memory, and with that information you arrived at a conclusion. Your brain, however, no longer needs those facts and figures; you've gotten what you needed from them, and they can be kicked out of working memory. What you store the…

The solution I use is to take notes.

I don't think the conversation on the social media is based around data. Most data points that people have are inaccurate (if not false), taken out of context, or used with an incorrect mental model. Once someone states something on social media, it has usually been taken on a viewpoint: at that point data is generally viewed with a confirmation bias type approach.

I am wondering if there is a way to teach everyone to separate facts from values. The facts are the most important part that should be maintained separately (you can do this with notes). Then we need to recognize that different individuals will apply different values and focus on transmitting facts in discussions and let everyone apply their own value system.

Re: Human brain compresses working memories into low-res ‘summaries’

#160

Post by lekevicius »

TameAntelope wrote: post #96

I think this is why it's hard sometimes to argue in support of something you believe, even if you're right. At one point, all of the relevant facts and figures were loaded into your working memory, and with that information you arrived at a conclusion. Your brain, however, no longer needs those facts and figures; you've gotten what you needed from them, and they can be kicked out of working memory. What you store the…

Favorited this comment for when my brain remembers "people argue online because of how our memory works", but not exactly how I arrived to that conclusion.
Post reply on HN