That's the subject of an entirely different discussion: The one about how things are represented inside the brain. That observation you made sounds like dreams happen at a higher level than the one that parses images into internal representations. Which makes a lot of sense - no need to emulate the actual image when you can just emulate the internal representation of "object #6239123718: Human 'EvilCheese'"

I think the way dreams work, as that when you are in sleep mode, your brain is still trying to parse a sort of non-sleeping consciousness, so it taps into different fragments of things in your mind, such as abstracts from games you were playing, movies you've seen, or thoughts you had, and then sort of compiles it all into a dream where different things (often strange) will happen based on the thoughts that were tapped. So for example, if you're attempting to break out of a prison, and you were casting Fireballs at stuff, maybe it tapped into a recent recollection of the Shawshank Redemption or The Rock, as well as a videogame you may have been playing. If you think hard enough, I believe you can associate most things that happen in your dreams to something in real life that have spent time thinking about. :)

[quote author=Raven link=board=2;threadid=2256;start=15#msg18273 date=1060987446]
when you are in sleep mode[/quote]

Oh goodie we're all turning into computers

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=2256;start=15#msg18269 date=1060985658]
That's the subject of an entirely different discussion: The one about how things are represented inside the brain. That observation you made sounds like dreams happen at a higher level than the one that parses images into internal representations. Which makes a lot of sense - no need to emulate the actual image when you can just emulate the internal representation of "object #6239123718: Human 'EvilCheese'"
[/quote]

I don't think your brain would number the objects.. at least, not a single dimensional number.

I think that me and you discussed that awhile back when I was writing my final paper for philosophy (which, by the way, I got an A+ on, giving me an A overall), and it's interesting how the brain processes information. I should start keeping a dreamlog and a diary :)

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=2256;start=30#msg18341 date=1061015596]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=2256;start=15#msg18269 date=1060985658]
That's the subject of an entirely different discussion: The one about how things are represented inside the brain. That observation you made sounds like dreams happen at a higher level than the one that parses images into internal representations. Which makes a lot of sense - no need to emulate the actual image when you can just emulate the internal representation of "object #6239123718: Human 'EvilCheese'"
[/quote]

I don't think your brain would number the objects.. at least, not a single dimensional number.

I think that me and you discussed that awhile back when I was writing my final paper for philosophy (which, by the way, I got an A+ on, giving me an A overall), and it's interesting how the brain processes information. I should start keeping a dreamlog and a diary :)
[/quote]Don't forget the perfume. Oh, and ribbons for your hair.

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=2347;start=0#msg18341 date=1061015596]
I don't think your brain would number the objects.. at least, not a single dimensional number.
[/quote]

No, probably not. But it's most probably using the same concept as assigning numbers to tokens in a computer application.


[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=2347;start=0#msg18341 date=1061015596]
I think that me and you discussed that awhile back when I was writing my final paper for philosophy (which, by the way, I got an A+ on, giving me an A overall), and it's interesting how the brain processes information. I should start keeping a dreamlog and a diary :)
[/quote]

Nice to hear that you got a good grade for that one. It was an interesting conversation! You never did show me what you wrote...

Here's my take on things:

I think the concept of the brain numbering or storing information and experiences as objects in some kind of multi-dimensional array would just be a convenient simplification for a process that's much more complex.

The human brain remembers by strengthening certain inter-neural links in response to repeated stimulus. The more often a stimulus is repeated or encountered, the stronger the bias of the neurons to pass on electrical signals along a given path. IIRC this is believed to be the main mechanism in both memory and learning.

What makes it interesting from a programmatic point of view is that the biasing is an essentially analogue process, rather than a digital one.

The brain contains nothing like an if(X){y;} structure, rather it contains a structure which would look more like:

if(x is quite likely)
[
Probably Do {y;}
Sometimes Do {z;}
On remote occasions do {something different;}
]

With the number of possibilities and the biases which affect the outcomes being essentially inumerable and changing each time the structure is executed, depending on results.

Writing code which is analogue, devious, and above all else self-modifying in this manner will (I believe) be the key to the development of true artificially intelligent systems.

The main trouble (there are many) from a coding perspective is that in attempting to implement the biases and the uncertainty in the decision making we are limited to using digital representations of the analgoue processes, making the accuracy and depth of possible results from a given occurence essentially and unavoidably limited.

I believe that in REM sleep, the brain fires off seemingly random neural pulses (I dont think anyone is sure why it does this)... the imagery is likely created by these pulses passing through the brain's regular stimulus-processing system, which is why you're likely to see things that are on "freshly burned" tracks (things on your mind).

The reason we forget dreams so easily on waking is (I expect) due to the fact that the bias alterations caused by the use of said pathways is incongruous with the normal parameters of usage for them, and so the deviations are quickly lost as those pathways are exposed to normal use.

It would be an interesting study to find out if the use of these neural pathways in a dream-state has any permanent bearing on the behaviour, interpretation or cognitive abilities of an individual.

[Note:]

This is just my take on things... it could be (and likely is) totally wrong :P

your all turning into robots.

EC, I'm fairly certain that the human brain functions in a much more complex manner than a computer or a few simple lines of code. ;)

Human brains are unique.That says it all.

It does make sense that signals aren't digital absolute numbers in the brain, but what do you think about how a new signal is assigned? I.e. when you define something, say a person or so, how do you think the brain assigns that? By dividing an existing space in two? Is that why we can get weird associations between people - the proximity of the signals in the brain's n-dimensional signal space?

[quote]
EC, I'm fairly certain that the human brain functions in a much more complex manner than a computer or a few simple lines of code.
[/quote]

I thought I'd implied that in what I wrote originally.

Acccurately modelling the behaviour of the human mind in code is beyond any current technology, however, in recent years there has been an explosion of fuzzy logic research and expert systems development.

Weighted probabilistic programming of the kind I described is however used on a much smaller scale for systems such as face, speech and general pattern recognition. (Google for "Neural network programming" or "Fuzzy logic")

Some would argue that it's only a matter of time and technological advance before systems are developed which are approaching the complexity required to carry out tasks or learn in a complex environment.

Whether this would bring computers with personalities, or "true" intelligence is a matter for highly philosophical debate, since many would argue that there is something "aside and seperate" from the brain..... a "soul" perhaps.. which is unreproducable and defines who they really are.

The origin of consciousness would be a debate for a seperate thread though, and might go on for quite a while :P

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=2347;start=0#msg18354 date=1061023314]
[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=2347;start=0#msg18341 date=1061015596]
I don't think your brain would number the objects.. at least, not a single dimensional number.
[/quote]

No, probably not. But it's most probably using the same concept as assigning numbers to tokens in a computer application.[/quote]

All memories are are chemical messages; I would say calling said ID a number is quite a stretch as there are no bits or even digits as said messages exist naturally. I suppose, however, that one could come along and string togeather a list of numbers representing all of the chemicals and their order in the ID, assuming that the brain stores IDs in that mannar.

Adron: I think when you see someone new, someone you havent met before, your brain first attempts to pigeonhole them into a category corresponding to someone you already know.

This is a very poor analogy, but view the brain when recognising people as one of those pyramid shaped boards with pegs in it that you roll balls down.

The balls being rolled down the board are the stimulus representing the person you are seeing, the pegs redirecting the balls are the defining features you use to recognise people, and the bins at the bottom which collect the balls correspond to different people who it could possibly be.

The first time you ever meet someone or see someone, you are likely to produce the response "That person looks like xxxx" where xxxx is someone you can already recognise... since most of the balls will end up in their bin.

However, since the process didnt turn up a 100% match, a new bin will be created for that person, new pegs will be inserted in the board, and the next time you see them you will be able to distinguish them more easily.

The more often you see them, the more refined the configuration of your "pegs" becomes and the more easily you will be able to pick them out.

Apologies for the poor analogy, but it was the best I could come up with in 30 seconds :P

It's a good analogy. What I'm wondering now is: Do you think there is a simplified representation for a person in the brain, or does the representation contain all the information you know about the person whenever you think about him/her? I.e. are the N inputs from your senses mapped to a set of n (n<N) data points that represent the person to your thinking process?

Psychologically, the system of data-points you use to recognise somebody or something is known as a Schema.

Your Schema for a particular thing encompasses all that you use to recognise that thing.

Usually on first exposure, you're likely to try to assign someone to be part of an existing schema. This is the cause of stereotyping. If you meet a German, and past insertions to your schema suggest that Germans are precise and dedicated, you will tend to see that person's actions in light of the schema you already have, and your brain will pick out the matching information and tend to discard the rest.

For "putting names to faces" your schema starts off at a simple level... maybe after you meet someone once, you will recognise them by the shape of their nose and the style of their hair.

After repeat exposures, your schema becomes more complex and refined... (more data points are added). Consistent behaviors and features are added to the schema, or used to strengthen it.. and those which dont fit are discarded.

So yes, the number of data points n would be less than the available recognition criteria N, but the ratio would be different depending on the complexity of the mental picture you have of the thing you are recognising.

Does that mean that thinking about someone you know better consumes more resources in your brain, because you have a larger schema to load for that person?

I dont think so, since Schemas arent "loaded" in the sense familiar to computer users, they're always present.

Schemas for people or things you've been exposed to recently or often are checked first and more quickly, which is why seeing someone you havent seen for 10 years, it might take you a few seconds (or longer) to remember who they are.

When thinking offline about someone (when they're not present) then the complexity of the schema will certainly affect the resources you will allocate... since for someone with a more complex schema, you will have more to think about.

When thinking about "Mike from the club" who you met once, it's possible that all you're capable of thinking about him is "Oh, he has a big nose." or "He seems to have a good sense of humor." but for someone you know and meet a lot (a close friend, girlfriend, wife, huband etc) you will have a larger schema and therefore a larger pool of resources to draw on... your schema may even be complex enough that you would be able to predict how they would act in a certain situation even though you've never seen them exposed to it.

For recognition purposes, the age and frequency of use of the schema is more important with regards to the speed of the process than the complexity of it.

If you smoked to much of me in one night (I have been pinging for almost 2 fucking months now!!) You get THE.. MOST.. WORST. Dreams ever. My theory is that it all comes from your sub conscious.

This girl that I love appeared in my dreams all the time, and it was quit embarresing. I knew it was a dream and I was aware I was dreaming but I keept on dreaming untill I woke up and I swear I could remember more then 7 seconds of it, few days later i cant remember a dream (becasue i had about 3 tripped out dreams a night.

I showed my friend a picture of 30 computers and 30 monitors lined up showing a big air plane game and he email back O SHIT! or something. Days after that I just thought he said HOLY SHIT and that thought remains.

The most scariest dream was Me and a group of friend were standing on a nice suny day. It goes up to this cloud in the sky and it starts melting (burning) and a fireball just starts going towards the ground.
This was like it was 100% real life and it was scary. Everyone was running around going insane and my asian friend said HOLY SHIT!!!!!(realy it was o shit =\) I just stand there accepting it saying "its how life works" and then my self was going insane and i was screaming "I REPENT FOR MY SINS" "PLEASE!!" then i was trying to think of something good that ive done (seriously i find it a hard question - becasue i could say "im my parents son - thats the best thing ever")

About a week before that this amphetamine problem was getting out of hand I thought i would die so i would prepare my self for my final judgement.

About a month later this "over dose" problem wasnt as bad as before (i could tell) and I was hanging for 'Ice' bad. I already swore to my self im not touching anything again. Well i couldnt feel the ice anymore so im saying to my self yea we will use ice again, I miss what has happened to me (it is fucking scary!!) but now i dont wanna use it again. fuck hope that makes sense heh i remember shit after i rember something else, etc. Anyways ive been hanging for ice so bad that ive been smoking a ridiculas amout of weed (yes i did "ping of my dick" a few times)

Well druing that week I had 2 dreams that i was smoking ice on foil and woke up drippin from head to toe =\
few days after that in a dream I was at a party (looked like the first party i had my first ecstacy at) and I had some cocaine and i chopped it up with tobaco (i smoke weed with tobaco) and i lined up a line. My friend who loves that cocaine techno song was there also.

Trippy shit!

through out the whole thing ive had pretty much the same paranoid / depressed state of mind (just evolved as i learn new things about me)

paranoid / depression / organ pain / head pain(one night right side of head hurts next night the left hurts and then spliting headache pain)

about 2 weeks ago my head was hurting (it was getting back together) ice shuts of one side of the brain and uses the other, ecstacy does the oppisute so dont mix ice and e's kids =)

last week my heart was hurting / but now its alright.

Yea i want to get a cat scan.

And since i typed pretty much %10 of whats happened to me and me alone thinking about whats happened to me used to scare me and i'd just start pinging (with paranoid state of mind)

Well ive passed my test!! i feel normal =\

say all the badest shit you want that im gonna die casue you cant scare me anymore!!

If anyone wants to i can try to think of the other tripped out dreams ive had. After typing that something else kicked in. All the dreams we SO DETAILED it was practicly real life. There was no trippy shit (how dreams are)

All the dreams were all based of the fundementals of life (if you get me) so there was no bizare shit (except when I was driving, roads got bigger, etc)

sometimes id be "awake" during all my dreams and id just be there knowing whats happening and then i wake up and rember a bit and remember it all. few times i wake up check the clock and its 9am i go back to sleep and instantly start dreaming of alot of shit that seamed not that long and i wake up and its like 11am.

All depends on if i wanted to sleep / could sleep / or to paranoid to sleep.

To much dopeamine for me. Fuck i was gonna say a few dreams and i dragged on, hope you enjoy the read and wish me the very best =)

After reading a few replies i forgot what i was gonna say so in reply to adron how new things get into your mind. I think it is "triggered"

My brain triggers memory alot!

I could be thinking of an apple i was eating and then id remember my grandmas apple tree that it had a insect problem and then id remember this time i was camping and i dug up a bull ant nest.

If you can access anything from your brain without loading a "process tree" thats good.

I usually have to get my self in that state of mind to know everything. (or anythng)

[quote][/quote] Whether this would bring computers with personalities, or "true" intelligence is a matter for highly philosophical debate, since many would argue that there is something "aside and seperate" from the brain..... a "soul" perhaps.. which is unreproducable and defines who they really are. [quote]

Just say you did right a huge program that just uses your computer, it could "read" webpages for information and do what the webpage says according to what the pc wants to do. Well just say it could "do" shit and think on its own. What ever the most extreme and complex thing it could do to change histroy would occur BEFORE YOU EVEN KNEW IT. What can a CPU do. 1000 process cycles per second or someshit. It would go super and do the most extreme thing =\

Thats how skynet suddenly spread the virii everywhere (or was it before skynet was launched) and then 2 seconds later it starting waking up robots and aimed nukes all over the world. because it was the most high end thing it could do.

[/quote]

[quote]
Just say you did right a huge program that just uses your computer, it could "read" webpages for information and do what the webpage says according to what the pc wants to do. Well just say it could "do" shit and think on its own. What ever the most extreme and complex thing it could do to change histroy would occur BEFORE YOU EVEN KNEW IT. What can a CPU do. 1000 process cycles per second or someshit. It would go super and do the most extreme thing =\
[/quote]

What you have to remember is that while a modern processor is capable of performing ~3000 million ticks per second.. the adult human brain contains 10-100 billion neurons, each of which is capable of performing its required functions in a fraction of a second, all in parallel.

If you were to construct a basic Neuron class in C++, it would be quite complex, with most of its actions taking >100 processor ticks.

Additionally, since processing would need to be done in parallel for all instances of the neuron class, each of them would need to be handled by a seperate processor capable of reacting with nanosecond latency to the outputs of up to several thousand others.

To create a simulation of this scale is beyond the scope of anything currently available to the human race, or anything that will be available for quite some time.

Amphetamine screwed up the quotes, what's regular is supposed to be quoted and vice versa (for those of you who are wondering wtf is going on).

Not contributing to this conversation, I know nothing of this stuff I'm rarely ever fully conscious...

I can't really join into this conversation persay because it is quite out of league. But I would like to say how impressively(sp?) you guys explain your theorys and arguments. I do quite enjoy reading this and a +1 goes to all of you who took part.

Based on EvilCheese' and Adron's discussion, I just want to bring up a little point:

When I watch movies with my friend, when somebody shows up, even if they are wearing a disguise or anything like that, my friend will say stuff like, "that's the janitor from Waterboy!" or "He was on a couple episodes of ST: Original Series", and, when we check into it, he's usually right. He can recognize a face instantly.

In my case, I could look onto a soccer field, seeing 12 girls running around, and I would have trouble picking out my sister. In a crouded room, I've had trouble picking out my own mother! When I see somebody whose face I recognize, I always wait for them to make the first move because I have a terrible memory for faces.

On the other hand, I can close my eyes and listen to a movie, and I'll often be able to pick out actors. When somebody calls my name from behind me, I instantly know who it is. If somebody I don't immediately recognize says hi to me, I often remember hearing their voice somewhere.

My point is, your pigeon-hole analogy is different for every person. Although I'm sure you knew that when you were saying it, I thought I'd push that fact to the front. If I have the same file on two computers, it's probably stored differently, but the storage manifests the same when I poke it with my mouse. If me and a friend have the same memory, when we access it, it manifests totally differently.

Although I'm stating more of a fact than an argument, it's just something to think about :)

It sounds like a pirated copy of "The Matrix", where your friend has given the video bitrate 600 kbps and audio bitrate 40 kbps, while you've given the video bitrate 256 kbps and audio bitrate 384 kbps...