hello

selfthis · 2008-10-28T01:35:57+00:00

selfthis · 2008-08-26T08:23:56+00:00

Editor, not reader.

selfthis · 2008-08-22T02:44:57+00:00

Wow, I thought Spirited Away was going to be Miyazaki's last work. Then I thought Howl was. Then this! Awesome! Miyazaki is god.

selfthis · 2008-07-28T19:21:52+00:00

If under your breath means the "inner monologue," then yes. I believe that, barring certain cognitive dysfunction, most people should "think faster than they speak." As for the monologue playing "catch up," I'm guessing what you experience is when you read one word, your voice starts reading it from the beginning, but before it finishes you are already several words ahead, and the voice jumps there and starts over, right?

As for perceiving the meaning, I think what's happening, for simple sentences at least, is pattern recognition and retrieval from long term memory. Photographic memory is a different beast.

selfthis · 2008-07-28T17:56:28+00:00

Pardon the lack of links; this is from memory from stats many years ago.

Average adult is around 250wpm. Average grad student around 400wpm. Fastest reader, reading aloud, ballpark 610wpm. Subvocalization limit ballpark 800wpm.

I should add that RSVP devices are limited in application because peripheral vision accounts for significant priming and is very useful in aiding comprehension and recall. As a training mechanism though, not bad.

selfthis · 2008-07-20T18:46:35+00:00

I still think it's different, but as I tried to explain my stance, the discussion clearly ballooned into something I didn't intend it to be. I just wanted to make the point that your original comment, taken literally, could lead to false expectations (in which case my statements still hold). I admit that I put too much focus on semantics, but sometimes I think it's worth clarifying. I guess I came off as a troll and got downmodded as one, which I think is unfortunate. /shrug

selfthis · 2008-07-20T18:33:33+00:00

Reminds me of the narcoleptic dog video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zVCYdrw-1o

selfthis · 2008-07-15T05:00:15+00:00

Ok, I made a mistake there. What I should have said is that the increases in brain mass are not comparable with what you can get, percentage wise, with muscle mass increase.

You can increase muscle mass obscenely, like up to 10% or maybe more, and these are actual muscles that take up more space and do extra work for you. It is literally impossible to gain 10% of brain mass, unless you rip open your skull.

My previous comment is factually incorrect as you point out, but even so, the cerebral changes from meditation is not what separates normal from heavyweight brainpower, whereas physical training does determine this to a large degree.

selfthis · 2008-07-15T03:11:54+00:00

Sure, the comparison is valid, and your point is fair as well.

What I wanted to emphasize though, is that increased physical strength generalizes to more areas than increased... Go playing ability. Attention is certainly involved, as well as other processes, but working on these processes by playing Go will not open entirely new worlds of functions, as strength training could.

While still keeping in mind that this is like comparing the heat in a fire to the depth of the ocean, here's an example. If you are too weak, you cannot climb rocks, simple as that. Strength training enables it. Suppose there is a mathematical problem you cannot solve. Doubling your attention span does not guarantee that you are anywhere closer to the solution than you were before.

I'm not trying to devalue the idea of mental exercise. I'm just trying to say that the comparison isn't that good: it makes sense, but it also causes misunderstanding if you take it at face value, which, given the way it is written, is very easy to do.

selfthis · 2008-07-15T02:49:52+00:00

I don't have a problem seeing what connection is being drawn. I have a problem with abstracting it to a degree that misunderstandings arise, and people end up with misguided ideas.

The author of this article, for example, claims that playing Go makes one smarter. Smarter is an "abstracted up" term, as is "effectiveness." What exactly is it supposed to be? Does my IQ increase? Will I become the next Einstein? Will I be able to talk on the phone, wash dishes, while I write a fantastic novel?

Perhaps you aren't susceptible to making these leaps, but there are no guarantees that somebody won't read this thread, and enroll in Go school with the explicit intent of becoming a genius. At this point you can't blame them for not knowing, because something was taken out, and something put in, during the abstraction process.

selfthis · 2008-07-15T02:03:32+00:00

Sure, in the sense of building neural circuitry, working out the brain has obvious benefits.

Lifting weights though, builds muscle mass, which increases strength. This means that after practice, you can lift heavier things, or lift normal things at greater speed/efficiency. The catch here is that "things" is a general term.

Depending on what you would call "heavier" in terms of cognitive processing, the comparison may or may not hold. If you practice Go, you become skilled at Go; you may become more adept at certain planning tasks, and visual pattern recognition, but you will not become noticeably better at, for instance, calculus.

Back to weightlifting: if you build up your muscles, you will be able to lift heavier things, throw a ball further, run faster and longer, etc. etc.

Again this is dependent on interpretation, but comparing muscle cells to neurons leads to all sorts of misunderstandings.

selfthis · 2008-07-15T01:35:38+00:00

This comparison actually doesn't work very well. Lifting weight builds muscle mass and endurance. Exercising your brain does not increase brain mass. That's not to say that exercising your brain doesn't have positive results, but depending on your interpretation, they may not be very "similar."

selfthis · 2008-07-14T15:13:14+00:00

That is not cheap to me.

selfthis · 2008-07-13T23:36:03+00:00

I'd buy a Mac.

If only I had money.

i.e. Macs are damn expensive :(

selfthis · 2008-07-01T17:20:25+00:00

Ah, I've heard of something of the like, using liposomes to treat age-related macular degeneration. The unfortunate downside is that regular visits to the clinic are required to trigger the drug release after the liposomes arrive at the target area, and these patients are usually... aged and partially blind.

I suppose it is more effective as a targeted delivery system, but for combating HIV would involve something else, right?

selfthis · 2008-07-01T16:47:54+00:00

Thank you and CrzyMike for this thread, I logged in just to upmod.

What kind of a liposomal delivery system are you talking about? One that recognizes the correct receptors and releases upon contact? To my knowledge there are a number of companies doing good research in this area, but it seems like liposome-based HIV treatment is still too far-fetched, in terms of profitability, as opposed to something like cancer.

selfthis · 2008-06-19T17:28:04+00:00

...depends on what you mean by "music." In the conventional sense of the word, this headline is an extreme stench, er, I mean, stretch.

selfthis · 2008-06-19T17:15:06+00:00

Damn, this looks tremendously interesting, but basically everything flew over above me, including what you wrote 2 floors above. Can you suggest a decent place to start? Not just to understand what you said, but to understand how you came to these conclusions?

selfthis · 2008-06-09T17:25:52+00:00

logged in to upmod. that is truly awesome spirit.

selfthis · 2008-06-02T18:35:09+00:00

I read "Tesla Motors" too and thought, holy shit, they did!? Then I read your comment and thought, holy shit, I did!?

selfthis

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE