Human brain compresses working memories into low-res ‘summaries’ • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by throw0101a » Tue, Apr 12, 2022, 6:10 PM UTC

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…

> 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.

I often say "X was explained to me once and it sounded reasonable, but I don't remember the details anymore."

Sometimes remembering the reasons themselves for X off the top of your head may not be important, but knowing that there are reasons (that you can look up) is.

What the answer is for something may not be as remember as remembering that an answer exists.

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

#162

Post by SinParadise » Tue, Apr 12, 2022, 6:13 PM UTC

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…

Which is also why I think using facts to convince others is a Sisyphean endeavor. It is far more rational to learn rhetoric when you have to argue. Learn to wield fallacies like a weapon.

Of course, this relates back to good-faith, bad-faith engagement. Wielding rhetoric like this constantly deters people from engaging in good-faith, so you also have to develop a heuristic to determine whether or not the individual challenging your assertions is worth engaging in good-faith in the first place.

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

#163

Post by leobg » Tue, Apr 12, 2022, 6:13 PM UTC

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…

"Would I not need to be a barrel of memory to also remember all my reasons? It is hard enough to remember just my opinions themselves!" -Nietzsche in Thus Spoke Zarathustra

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

#164

Post by whatshisface » Tue, Apr 12, 2022, 6:13 PM UTC

bufferoverflow wrote: post #143

whatshisface wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's not how definitions work. I can't know what your brain thinks bread is. And if you die, I can never know.

Definitions do not have to be computable, even in principle. For example, "a Turing machine that halts" is well-defined although there is no algorithm for classifying things into that bin.

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

#165

Post by MichaelBurge » Tue, Apr 12, 2022, 6:14 PM UTC

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.

That makes you a bread-oracle O, but doesn't define bread.

Since there are some inputs x where O(x0) = False, some where O(x1) = True, and the laws of physics are continuous(yes, even in quantum mechanics), Buridan's Principle implies that you are incapable of deciding the breadness of arbitrary input in bounded time.

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

#166

Post by whatshisface » Tue, Apr 12, 2022, 6:15 PM UTC

MichaelBurge wrote: post #165

whatshisface wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That makes you a bread-oracle O, but doesn't define bread. Since there are some inputs x where O(x0) = False, some where O(x1) = True, and the laws of physics are continuous(yes, even in quantum mechanics), Buridan's Principle implies that you are incapable of deciding the breadness of arbitrary input in bounded time.

I agree that I cannot decide the breadness of arbitrary inputs in bounded time, although I contend that does not stop me from claiming to have defined bread, on the grounds that the set of Turing machines that halt is well-defined but also has the same difficulty you're describing.

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

#167

Post by whatshisface » Tue, Apr 12, 2022, 6:17 PM UTC

dpierce9 wrote: post #152

whatshisface wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

It is impossible to share definitions of natural-language words, at least pending advanced brain scanning technology. That's a limitation of physical reality, not a philosophical flaw.

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

#168

Post by lizardactivist » Tue, Apr 12, 2022, 6:19 PM UTC

Every now and then I become aware that things were not as I seemed to remember them. There's definitely some lossy compression going on up there!

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

#169

Post by samatman » Tue, Apr 12, 2022, 6:25 PM UTC

qq66 wrote: post #102

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…

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?"

This is more about the fact that we recognize bread, and definition plays no role in the process of recognition. Even if we define what bread is, that won't play a role in our recognition of anything other than maybe-this-is-bread-plus-I'm-being-asked-to-judge-if-it-is-or-not.

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

#170

Post by Sohcahtoa82 » Tue, Apr 12, 2022, 6:26 PM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #167

dpierce9 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It is impossible to share definitions of natural-language words, at least pending advanced brain scanning technology. That's a limitation of physical reality, not a philosophical flaw.

Are you implying that definitions aren't real because they're not physical objects?