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

181–190 of 349 posts

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

#181

Post by mattkrause »

bick_nyers wrote: post #172
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…

Another potential upside of a brain to computer interface (Neuralink), the ability to store every memory you have ever had (while the device was installed) in full resolution. Assuming of course you maintain a server rack at home with copious amounts of hard drives.

(...and we figure out how to that which is uhh...not close).

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

#182

Post by freedomben »

SinParadise wrote: post #162
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 c…

I've found that 100/100 people just get offended and/or pissed and retreat to their amygdala if you point out a fallacy in their logic. It certainly doesn't help that many people pointing out logical fallacies are in fact wrong (and fallacious) themselves (the "you're using a slippery slope fallacy" for example is fallaciously used all over the place).

I'm becoming increasingly convinced that good faith engagement is essentially impossible. The only reason I engage at all anymore is for the third party that might be an honest seeker who may stumble upon the thread at some point in the future.

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

#183

Post by dudeman13 »

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

You are awfully optimistic about the rationality of humans, aren't you? :)

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

#184

Post by gehwartzen »

ThalesX wrote: post #58
ansible wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if that's something that can be practiced and improved upon.

I've been trying for years to visualize. My SO is an artist and my mother a psychologist, so I've been trying to gets tips and tricks from them. I never managed to even get a hint of color.

You sound similar to me, girlfriend is an artist with an incredible visual imagination, mother is a therapist, and I was at a 0 on the scale before I met her. My gf and I have had some deep conversations, sometimes assisted by MDMA, and at times to the point of crying in front of her in a state of completely trusting her which uncovered some past trauma, social fears, and other discomforts I needed to work through. Anyway after each of these times it would get a little easier to visualize; simple colors at first, then colorful shapes, now small snippets of images that come in and out. Maybe a 2-3 on the scale. Also my memory has improved, not so much for technical stuff, but just remembering the details of my life which before had huge spans (in years) that I mostly didn't remember.

Anyway this might just be specific to me but something to think about.

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

#185

Post by sethrin »

bick_nyers wrote: post #172
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…

Another potential upside of a brain to computer interface (Neuralink), the ability to store every memory you have ever had (while the device was installed) in full resolution. Assuming of course you maintain a server rack at home with copious amounts of hard drives.

> full resolution

What, generally, do you think this might mean?

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

#186

Post by SinParadise »

freedomben wrote: post #182
SinParadise wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

I've found that 100/100 people just get offended and/or pissed and retreat to their amygdala if you point out a fallacy in their logic. It certainly doesn't help that many people pointing out logical fallacies are in fact wrong (and fallacious) themselves (the "you're using a slippery slope fallacy" for example is fallaciously used all over the place). I'm becoming increasingly convinced that good faith engagement is…

>I've found that 100/100 people just get offended and/or pissed and retreat to their amygdala if you point out a fallacy in their logic.

And I am sure I've been guilty of this before, many many times. Being challenged is not a comfortable position to be in. I have since learned to weaken my position to give myself and others some leeway when one of us is wrong.

>I'm becoming increasingly convinced that good faith engagement is essentially impossible.

It is certainly getting more difficult. I think it is still useful to engage with individuals in your chosen social circle honestly and in good-faith, otherwise why are they in your circle in the first place?

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

#188

Post by sethrin »

nicoburns wrote: post #53
nice2meetu wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ditto on the "certain female family member who insists that she remembers things word-for-word". When she recounts her meeting with a friend it is needlessly tedious (I try to be a good listener of course). Complains that my recollections are too vague and she wants to know what really happened and is frustrated I won't give her details. I think a large part of it is just that you store what is important to you. To m…

The Myers-Briggs system distinguishes call these two perspectives "Sensing" (detail orientated) and "Intuition" (theory/model based) [not the best names]. And it posits that it's less a matter of importance people place on things and more that people literally notice different things and perceive the world differently (so it's not even just about remembering, it's about what you notice and how your mind represents th…

Meyers-Briggs is a fundamentally non-empirical model. I wouldn't recommend it as the basis for any argument or position concerning real world phenomena.

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

#190

Post by pc86 »

dudeman13 wrote: post #183
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 You are awfully optimistic about the rationality of humans, aren't you? :)

I know this is a joke but it seems unnecessary. Most people actually do use evidence and logic to arrive at their opinions. The problem is some people are presented with incorrect or fabricated evidence. Some people draw incorrect conclusions, or maybe some of the evidence is above their head so they ignore that when it's vital to proper understanding. Some people aren't particularly good at logical thinking, or never progressed past introductory levels.

This is all why you can show identical evidence to a group of people and get multiple, sometimes very different, opinions.

Post reply on HN