Live data from Hacker News

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

directorsblog.nih.gov

191–200 of 349 posts

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

#191
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

One whose body is sufficiently defined.

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

#193
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessarily, since models that predict correctly can still be wrong. Science is figuring out the real mechanism

I disagree with this definition. We have yet to produce a perfect model of the world (aka, a theory of everything). All models produced by "science" thus far are "wrong", at least on some level (ex. Newton's model doesn't cover relativity). I think "Creating models with predictive power is also a precise definition of science." is a fair description.

I think it's fair to say that a "theory of everything" is sort of the great work of any particular field of science. In practice that means refining models, but the model-building is ancillary to the truth-finding, not the other way around. Of course, if the truth wasn't predictive we're all just screwed, but that doesn't mean that whatever is predictive is necessarily the truth. It just means we might all be screwed.

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

#194
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?"

This thought experiment ends with Diogenes running into the Academy and tossing a Guinness in my face. ;)

I have a hard time believing Diogenes would waste a good Guinness like that.

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

#195

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…

What you described is called scientific method.

It'd need good STEM education in young age, not shy on math, or at the very least doing computer programming professionally at some points of life.

Good luck finding those in the last couple generations in the West.

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

#196
post #104
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean loads of people have very precise and good memories. Photographic memory as a term exists for a reason

Photographic memory is not a real phenomenon though. But eidetic memory is real, some people can remember almost everything they read. But they don’t remember photographic images.

I think you’ve been downvoted because “photographic” is just a figure of speech to mean eidetic. If you look up “eidetic” it’s essentially a synonym.

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

#197
post #109

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

It is literally a definition: it defines the boundary between what is and isn't bread.

There is a lot of context that is needed to get to a positive identification (maybe the word you meant) of bread, but that is true of many definitions present in dictionaries, etc. today.

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

#198
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.

Remarkably, you are getting downvoted for stating exactly the conclusion of pretty much all philosophical discussion on the matter since the mid-20th century.

Notably, the public reacted similarly then as HN does now, rejecting the notion that meaning is only constructed and, furthermore, hopelessly solipsistic.

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

#199
post #106
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Creating models with predictive power is also a precise definition of science.

Not necessarily, since models that predict correctly can still be wrong. Science is figuring out the real mechanism

I think that most work in quantum physics negates that claim.

While we are improving our predictive power, we’re still baffled by the underlying nature of reality. We don’t know the “mechanism” by which the quantum world works.

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

#200

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…

This is why verbal debates are bad.
Post reply on HN