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

Why read books if we can’t remember what’s in them?

arvindn.livejournal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 75 posts

Re: Why read books if we can’t remember what’s in them?

#41

Post by aaronblohowiak »

JonnieCache wrote: post #38
cletus wrote: post #8

Direct link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/books/review/Collins-t.htm... (IMHO this post adds very ltitle) The poster is quite skeptical that books change us. I don't understand why because the truth is this (IMHO) is blatantly self-evident. Even our machine learning models are capable of taking inputs and changing the internal structure creating or modifying the ability to make inferences. Why do you think our b…

Doesn't everything reconfigure our neurons? Isn't that the essence of conscious experience? To claim otherwise implies dualism as far as I can see. We know that the dynamic electrical state can't have much to do with it, because you can cool the brain to the point where all electrical activity ceases and it doesn't have any significant effect when you wake them up. That only leaves the configuration of the brain's pa…

IIRC, electricity is used to activate the release of neurotransmitters (intercellular communication is actually chemical, not electrical); the more interesting things are what governs the activation potential, the weights of the inputs and the connections between neurons. assuming that you can modify the activation potential across an axon, you still won't change the relative weights of its inputs or the neuron's connections...

Re: Why read books if we can’t remember what’s in them?

#42

Post by henrikschroder »

JonnieCache wrote: post #38
cletus wrote: post #8

Direct link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/books/review/Collins-t.htm... (IMHO this post adds very ltitle) The poster is quite skeptical that books change us. I don't understand why because the truth is this (IMHO) is blatantly self-evident. Even our machine learning models are capable of taking inputs and changing the internal structure creating or modifying the ability to make inferences. Why do you think our b…

Doesn't everything reconfigure our neurons? Isn't that the essence of conscious experience? To claim otherwise implies dualism as far as I can see. We know that the dynamic electrical state can't have much to do with it, because you can cool the brain to the point where all electrical activity ceases and it doesn't have any significant effect when you wake them up. That only leaves the configuration of the brain's pa…

> Doesn't everything reconfigure our neurons?

I would guess it happens in different degrees depending on how novel the experience is. Going to work for the 1537th time - not so much. Watching a predictable movie - a little bit. Reading an unpredictable book - now we're talking!

Re: Why read books if we can’t remember what’s in them?

#44

Post by YmMot »

When I was very young I developed the habit of rereading almost every book I read multiple times; unless I found it particularly bad or boring. I think most kids do this, but some seem to lose the habit along the way. I tend to be "reading" multiple books at any given time; a new one that gets most of my attention and then 2 or 3 old ones that I will switch to to break up the pace. As a result I tend to retain a fair bit; enough that I feel it's worth my while. There are some books in my collection I can recite large portions of from reading them so many times. I've probably read the Brothers Karamazov ~20 times. I've never understood this notion some people seem to have of reading a book and then being done with it.

Re: Why read books if we can’t remember what’s in them?

#45

Post by fakelvis »

Instead of debating the merits of reading due to the fact that you can't remember what you read, why not improve how you read to drastically increase how much you remember. Why not (re-)learn how to really read.

Of course, I'm talking of Adler's How to Read a Book.

Admittedly, it's intention was to help in absorbing and analysing The Great Books [2], but I have found it of unbounded usefulness when reading any non-fiction (retention rates went through the roof). Regardless: without using the techniques he discusses (some of you may already, without knowing it) you'll never be able to read or learn from books at your full potential.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Read_a_Book

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Books

Re: Why read books if we can’t remember what’s in them?

#46

Post by fakelvis »

cletus wrote: post #8

Direct link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/books/review/Collins-t.htm... (IMHO this post adds very ltitle) The poster is quite skeptical that books change us. I don't understand why because the truth is this (IMHO) is blatantly self-evident. Even our machine learning models are capable of taking inputs and changing the internal structure creating or modifying the ability to make inferences. Why do you think our b…

The original NYT article was posted to HN almost two years ago. The comments from that post are worth a read: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1743513

Re: Why read books if we can’t remember what’s in them?

#47

Post by Dn_Ab »

cletus wrote: post #8

Direct link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/books/review/Collins-t.htm... (IMHO this post adds very ltitle) The poster is quite skeptical that books change us. I don't understand why because the truth is this (IMHO) is blatantly self-evident. Even our machine learning models are capable of taking inputs and changing the internal structure creating or modifying the ability to make inferences. Why do you think our b…

Some researchers are finding evidence that fiction improves a person's ability to empathize by sharpening their theory of mind. And by empathy I mean more than just being able to comfort people well. I mean the ability to know that She knew that he knows that they think she thinks they know about her top secret project. This level of intentionality is useful for making optimal decisions and navigating complex social scenarios, the best authors have one or 2 more levels than the average of 4 .

Reading a sensory description actually activates the respective areas in the brain, a bona fide simulation of reality. The reason reading can absorb one so much is that the brain is actually generating signals that are essentially the same as if the person was actually experiencing the phenomenon* .

Better than common sense, scientific evidence is actually showing that reading has measurable beneficial effects.

( * ) What’s more, this activity was concentrated in one part of the motor cortex when the movement described was arm-related and in another part when the movement concerned the leg.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/opinion/sunday/the-neurosc...

Re: Why read books if we can’t remember what’s in them?

#48

Post by JonnieCache »

aaronblohowiak wrote: post #41
JonnieCache wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't everything reconfigure our neurons? Isn't that the essence of conscious experience? To claim otherwise implies dualism as far as I can see. We know that the dynamic electrical state can't have much to do with it, because you can cool the brain to the point where all electrical activity ceases and it doesn't have any significant effect when you wake them up. That only leaves the configuration of the brain's pa…

IIRC, electricity is used to activate the release of neurotransmitters (intercellular communication is actually chemical, not electrical); the more interesting things are what governs the activation potential, the weights of the inputs and the connections between neurons. assuming that you can modify the activation potential across an axon, you still won't change the relative weights of its inputs or the neuron's con…

>(intercellular communication is actually chemical, not electrical)

Passing sodium ions around still sort of counts as electrical though doesn't it, because you're transferring charge? Or have I misunderstood?

Re: Why read books if we can’t remember what’s in them?

#49

Post by vacri »

eagsalazar wrote: post #20

The attitude of the author is irritating and all too common in people in love with a self image of being an intellectual. "In the absence of rigorous experimental evidence, I’m quite skeptical." - This is not logic. This is an arrogant and out of hand rejection of a hypothesis that has not yet been proven or disproven. " “expert” who “totally believes” you’re a “different person” for having read books even if you don…

Not to mention that his same arguments can be applied to all fiction (movies, plays, etc) and music ('fleeting entertainment' which you don't jot down for use elsewhere). The author sounds like a tedious, trite person that wouldn't be much fun to be around.

Similarly, while he's trying to pose as an intellectual as you say, he misses the point that we learn things in multiple layers. Rememberance of the literal wording is only one layer. Witness Romeo and Juliet, a classic story which most people are familiar with, but extremely few would be able to quote a line from. Reading this guy's essay was like listening to those insufferable fresh graduates who claim 'but I never learned anything at university'.

Re: Why read books if we can’t remember what’s in them?

#50

Post by vacri »

kapilkaisare wrote: post #26
siavosh wrote: post #24

At the risk of being slightly off topic: people rarely discuss the fact that reading a book can have a negative impact on one's life. Books are just a materialization of ideas, and they can be good or bad. They can steer you down a promising path, or an equally unproductive one. And the problem with books is that they can be very persuasive, using rhetoric, 300+ pages can convince you of many things. I've experienced…

I am intrigued. Would you be willing to mention the names of the books and the paths you believe they took you down?

Any book that can be considered a manifesto would fit this concept, from the Bible to Atlas Shrugged.
Post reply on HN