the effect of dual n back
oh my god, i dont know what the effect of dual n back is, i dont realize that my mental is smarter. sometimes, something tries to prevent me from thinking of something. my mental just seems to be stuck. when i m thinking about something, my mental doesnot work quickly. it took a long time for me to think about this effect s method. im very undecided
vietnam63 | 3 years ago
Reply
cognitivefun | 3 years ago
Reply
vietnam63 | 3 years ago
Reply
In reference to the dual n-back exercise, the intended effect is, as far as I can tell, twofold: training of attention and training of resource management.
Attention means staying concentrated for something you are doing. If "something tries to prevent you from thinking of something" means you have a hard time concentrating, then there is some use in training attention.
Resource management means the skill of efficiently switching between different goals in a task. If you are driving a car, for example, this means you remember where you are driving (final goal), but in between this, you think about the route, respond to traffic lights and such (intermediate goals).
By most people's understanding of "smart," a "smarter" person is effectively better at these things. It's not that easy to measure, so it's hard to decide whether or not you are "getting smarter" by trying to feel for a sense of "smartness."
Another complicated issue is how much long term memory is involved. The "smartest" people invariably rely on long term memory for the hardest tasks. This, without exception, is a result of long-term practice -- on the scale of years.
Depending on what kind of "smart" you are looking for, there may be different ways to create your training routine. But I can assure you two things: training of working memory (such as the n-back exercise) is useful (exactly how much is a hard question!), and there is no one-size-fit-all solution (yet).
Attention means staying concentrated for something you are doing. If "something tries to prevent you from thinking of something" means you have a hard time concentrating, then there is some use in training attention.
Resource management means the skill of efficiently switching between different goals in a task. If you are driving a car, for example, this means you remember where you are driving (final goal), but in between this, you think about the route, respond to traffic lights and such (intermediate goals).
By most people's understanding of "smart," a "smarter" person is effectively better at these things. It's not that easy to measure, so it's hard to decide whether or not you are "getting smarter" by trying to feel for a sense of "smartness."
Another complicated issue is how much long term memory is involved. The "smartest" people invariably rely on long term memory for the hardest tasks. This, without exception, is a result of long-term practice -- on the scale of years.
Depending on what kind of "smart" you are looking for, there may be different ways to create your training routine. But I can assure you two things: training of working memory (such as the n-back exercise) is useful (exactly how much is a hard question!), and there is no one-size-fit-all solution (yet).
cognitivefun | 3 years ago
Reply
Smarts isn't shown by prowess at an over-learnt discrete task - it's the ability to adapt to novel or complex situations, to think on one's feet.
cevapcici | 3 years ago
Reply
"novel or complex situations"
This is an interesting bit. Most situations we encounter are not truly novel. A novel thing to one is not "as novel" to another.
cognitivefun | 3 years ago
Reply
"prowess at an over-learnt discrete task"
So this is less of "smart" than of "expertise." I guess you could say a "smart" person is quicker to "get their feet wet" in a novel situation, and becoming an expert at that situation is a different process.
cognitivefun | 3 years ago
Reply
But what is it "to think"? Would not that be "prowess at an over-learnt discrete task"?
Just a source for some reflection.
Just a source for some reflection.
? | 3 years ago
Reply
cevapcici | 3 years ago
Reply
So, according to your idea, thinking would be a "prowess at an over-learnt discrete metatask", roughly speaking?
My point is, thinking may very well be reducible to its own set, a kind of null set, if you will. This in turn provides ammunition (permit me this prodigality) for the idea that "smarts" would even be on the battlefield of discussion.
In other words, if smarts can be improved by prolonged use of the dual n-back task (note that it is a task), then this ability to learn/practice, as you put it, is exactly that which you deem it is not -- I shall not repeat you a third time.
I'm merely trying to unravel the logic behind your statement, because I think it is highly circular in nature (not that that is a terrible thing), and that this circularity is highly revealing of the veritable potential for "smarts" (cf. gF, as you seem to imply by your definition involving thinking) to improve by extensive engagement in a single task.
Anyway, I think it is high time to recombine gF and gC into one -- because they do fit into one head, don't they?
My point is, thinking may very well be reducible to its own set, a kind of null set, if you will. This in turn provides ammunition (permit me this prodigality) for the idea that "smarts" would even be on the battlefield of discussion.
In other words, if smarts can be improved by prolonged use of the dual n-back task (note that it is a task), then this ability to learn/practice, as you put it, is exactly that which you deem it is not -- I shall not repeat you a third time.
I'm merely trying to unravel the logic behind your statement, because I think it is highly circular in nature (not that that is a terrible thing), and that this circularity is highly revealing of the veritable potential for "smarts" (cf. gF, as you seem to imply by your definition involving thinking) to improve by extensive engagement in a single task.
Anyway, I think it is high time to recombine gF and gC into one -- because they do fit into one head, don't they?
? | 3 years ago
Reply
Well, smarts may be improved by dn-back (a special case taskwise, whose possible effects are not assured), but only in the same way that muscles may be honed by physical exercises - there are still (obviously) differences in natural endowment and (I assume) the extent of potential improvement.
cevapcici | 3 years ago
Reply
the parallels with exercise are uncanny, all we can do is keep going... but as with exercise... the further you go... the harder it becomes to go further yet.
medicalstudent | 3 years ago
Reply
complex thread.
might hardwired reflexes allow learning without thought?
kid touches stove --> reflex causes contraction of limbs away from stove --> kid remembers stove is hot --> kid learns to not touch stove --> categorical learning --> kid learns to be wary of that which resembles stove in both appearance (glowing red) and sensation (closer is hotter) [this may explain relations between sensory discrimination and g]
memory = what is/what was
learning = predicting what will be (with ever increasing accuracy) = "thinking on one's feet"
did reflexes start this whole process?
is thought an emergent property of reflexes with outcome memory... perpetually refined with experience?
seemingly deterministic if true.
might hardwired reflexes allow learning without thought?
kid touches stove --> reflex causes contraction of limbs away from stove --> kid remembers stove is hot --> kid learns to not touch stove --> categorical learning --> kid learns to be wary of that which resembles stove in both appearance (glowing red) and sensation (closer is hotter) [this may explain relations between sensory discrimination and g]
memory = what is/what was
learning = predicting what will be (with ever increasing accuracy) = "thinking on one's feet"
did reflexes start this whole process?
is thought an emergent property of reflexes with outcome memory... perpetually refined with experience?
seemingly deterministic if true.
medicalstudent | 3 years ago
Reply
Relating to the self-referential nature of the feedback and feedforward elements of the brain, I think an affirmative response to your initial question can be justified.
Of course, we could go a whole hell of a way by declaring that all processes are equivalent to thought a la C. S. Peirce -- though his tychism would make for some musing scoffs at any idea of determinism on that account -- I am referring to his semeiotics, if no one realises.
But reflexes can be controlled (with the development of what we may amusingly call reflexes), so any such determinism is rather absurd to assert. Let me passingly point to the example of meditation techniques and the effects elicited by highly trained meditators, such as Tibetan monks, where surprising control over their individual metabolic rates have been observed and confirmed.
Of course, we could go a whole hell of a way by declaring that all processes are equivalent to thought a la C. S. Peirce -- though his tychism would make for some musing scoffs at any idea of determinism on that account -- I am referring to his semeiotics, if no one realises.
But reflexes can be controlled (with the development of what we may amusingly call reflexes), so any such determinism is rather absurd to assert. Let me passingly point to the example of meditation techniques and the effects elicited by highly trained meditators, such as Tibetan monks, where surprising control over their individual metabolic rates have been observed and confirmed.
? | 3 years ago
Reply
"might hardwired reflexes allow learning without thought?"
Depends on how you define "thought," but in terms of reflexes and classical conditioning, sure.
The hot stove scenario you gave is such an example; however, the withdrawal from pain reflex is mediated by the spinal cord. The command to retract your hand should have fired before your higher cognitive processes have begun to processes the pain.
More extremely, the pain reflex should be present, even if the higher brain is paralyzed.
The hot stove scenario you gave is such an example; however, the withdrawal from pain reflex is mediated by the spinal cord. The command to retract your hand should have fired before your higher cognitive processes have begun to processes the pain.
More extremely, the pain reflex should be present, even if the higher brain is paralyzed.
cognitivefun | 3 years ago
Reply
"More extremely, the pain reflex should be present, even if the higher brain is paralyzed."
agreed.
in which case this would not contribute to learning, let alone thought... unless a paralyzed brain can think.
(semantics)
in which case this would not contribute to learning, let alone thought... unless a paralyzed brain can think.
(semantics)
medicalstudent | 3 years ago
Reply
"kid touches stove --> reflex causes contraction of limbs away from stove --> kid remembers stove is hot --> kid learns to not touch stove --> categorical learning --> kid learns to be wary of that which resembles stove in both appearance (glowing red) and sensation (closer is hotter) [this may explain relations between sensory discrimination and g]
memory = what"
There are two components of the newly learned knowledge here. First is the association of pain to the heat; the second is the generalization of the physical features (appearance and any other sensory perceptions) of the stove to a source of pain. The first is unconscious and the second is conscious. Both, I believe, are long-term processes purely in the form of stimulus-response, and would not bear strong relationship to general intelligence.
cognitivefun | 3 years ago
Reply
"strong relationship to general intelligence."
meaning "g"?
if, as Jensen says, "g"=Gf, then sure.
(i don't know enough about the basis for the conclusion relating sensory discrimination to "g" to comment here)
if, "g"=Gf and Gc...
Gc depends on previously acquired knowledge (sensory perceptions associated with stove to "learn" to avoid it), right?
if, as Jensen says, "g"=Gf, then sure.
(i don't know enough about the basis for the conclusion relating sensory discrimination to "g" to comment here)
if, "g"=Gf and Gc...
Gc depends on previously acquired knowledge (sensory perceptions associated with stove to "learn" to avoid it), right?
medicalstudent | 3 years ago
Reply
That would be gF and gC (invert your capitalisation).
gC = previously acquired knowledge
gF = ability to educe information without regard to previously acquired knowledge
But I'm beginning to doubt this formula.
In conventional terms, g = gF + gC
gC = previously acquired knowledge
gF = ability to educe information without regard to previously acquired knowledge
But I'm beginning to doubt this formula.
In conventional terms, g = gF + gC
? | 3 years ago
Reply
"mergent property of reflexes with outcome memory... perpetually refined with experience?
seemingly det"
I wouldn't characterize it as such. While reflexes and thought can interfere with each other, conscious thought requires different brain regions.
cognitivefun | 3 years ago
Reply
But the problem with "conscious thought" is current research showing how this can be determined by unconscious components, that is, be considered as "unconscious".
But all this sidesteps the problem that no one here has even defined consciousness. Are you just referring to the capacity to recall events verbally (memory)?
But all this sidesteps the problem that no one here has even defined consciousness. Are you just referring to the capacity to recall events verbally (memory)?
? | 3 years ago
Reply
medicalstudent | 3 years ago
Reply
Why? Well, that is far from the point. Many individuals have yet to approach the problem seriously, almost relying on a kind of "mystical quality" to it that is beyond computational modelling (hence the "mind-body" dualism, a kind of refuse of Cartesianisms and outright empty verbiage). I frankly disagree with this train of thought, which asserts consciousness is merely annexed to our daily lives, so to speak, and that any zombified human being will do (it is oxymoronic, in my view). Anyway, I was merely directing this to cognitivefun, as they are aware, in the sense that this is a very troublesome issue, especially with the rise of AI (strong and weak alike) and various dissidents who argue that these entities will never attain "consciousness" (I refer to this "mystical quality"). Thus this was merely for a form of clarification, for thought, something deeply entwined, I would think, with the subject of consciousness, necessarily brings all of this into play.
If I were to endorse any conception of "consciousness" it would necessarily include some sort of semeiotic process, but now I'm starting to ring philosophical when I should be skeptically toned down.
All that said, I see some difficulty with your why. I mean, we could apply your version (pardon me if I temporarily assert that you are asserting for sake of argument) of this term to the domain of computers quite easily, such that "consciousness" would be the interaction of RAM and CPU, etc. But then this brings to bear John Searle's Chinese Room, and the demonstration indicates that we do not at all have anything "conscious" in our little desktop PC.
Relatedly, I would recommend On Intelligence by John Hawkins, who briefly deals with this topic at the end of his book -- if you want something modern and thoroughly couched in scientific hypothesising.
If I were to endorse any conception of "consciousness" it would necessarily include some sort of semeiotic process, but now I'm starting to ring philosophical when I should be skeptically toned down.
All that said, I see some difficulty with your why. I mean, we could apply your version (pardon me if I temporarily assert that you are asserting for sake of argument) of this term to the domain of computers quite easily, such that "consciousness" would be the interaction of RAM and CPU, etc. But then this brings to bear John Searle's Chinese Room, and the demonstration indicates that we do not at all have anything "conscious" in our little desktop PC.
Relatedly, I would recommend On Intelligence by John Hawkins, who briefly deals with this topic at the end of his book -- if you want something modern and thoroughly couched in scientific hypothesising.
? | 3 years ago
Reply
"But the problem with "conscious thought" is current research showing how this can be determined by unconscious components, that is, be considered as "unconscious"."
Fair point; I should be more careful about this. I would be better off saying higher- and lower- brain functions. I was focused on how reflexes relate to thought, in which case I would restrict reflexes to those immediate reactions that originate primarily in the spine.
Those of conscious thought, I would restrict to those originating in the forebrain, that are accessible to one's awareness, although, as you notice, I put myself in a minefield.
Those of conscious thought, I would restrict to those originating in the forebrain, that are accessible to one's awareness, although, as you notice, I put myself in a minefield.
cognitivefun | 3 years ago
Reply
"Are you just referring to the capacity to recall events verbally (memory)?"
I shouldn't be trying to define consciousness or I'd find myself in trouble... but declarative memory wouldn't be enough. In a way, a tape recorder has declarative memory, but it doesn't have the ability to utilize its memories in different and changing contexts.
This "executive" ability is what we're getting at, but it's also not a single function. There is resource management, conflict resolution, pattern detection, and a slew of other things. I would normally put these things under the word "thought."
Nevertheless, even if we identify all, or even just most, of the critical components that allow humans to learn things and solve new problems, I guess we still wouldn't have defined "thought" nor "consciousness." The issue of how thought arises (out of "nothing") is still up in the air.
I should have been more careful with my words. :)
This "executive" ability is what we're getting at, but it's also not a single function. There is resource management, conflict resolution, pattern detection, and a slew of other things. I would normally put these things under the word "thought."
Nevertheless, even if we identify all, or even just most, of the critical components that allow humans to learn things and solve new problems, I guess we still wouldn't have defined "thought" nor "consciousness." The issue of how thought arises (out of "nothing") is still up in the air.
I should have been more careful with my words. :)
cognitivefun | 3 years ago
Reply
Spectrum had an interesting article on integrative information theory and consciousness. The article was basically positing that consciousness was related to the amount of integrated information a system.
They defined the amount of information,Φ, to be the amount of information that came from a specific state and was not deducible from the individual parts.
They mentioned computer tests implied that systems with a high Φ had specialized components with many pathways for communication. For example, the Cerebellum was mentioned as not having a lot to do with consciousness.
Article: http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jun08/6315
They defined the amount of information,Φ, to be the amount of information that came from a specific state and was not deducible from the individual parts.
They mentioned computer tests implied that systems with a high Φ had specialized components with many pathways for communication. For example, the Cerebellum was mentioned as not having a lot to do with consciousness.
Article: http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jun08/6315
midfield99 | 3 years ago
Reply
? | 3 years ago
Reply
"interfere"
the crux of the issue
don't think we will ever know the answer... but that doesn't mean there isn't a question.
gotta love correlational loops.
no idea what to say...
other than thanks for responding!
the crux of the issue
don't think we will ever know the answer... but that doesn't mean there isn't a question.
gotta love correlational loops.
no idea what to say...
other than thanks for responding!
medicalstudent | 3 years ago
Reply
medicalstudent | 3 years ago
Reply
