Forums IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ PhotoReading, Memory Optimizer new perspectives on PR mechanics

Hi all!
Just got back from Xmas hols and now busily studying for psychology exams.

Too busy to explain in detail at the moment but what do other readers think of the connectionist model of the mind as a paradigm for explaining PR as opposed to the usual conscious-subconscious dialectic?

Personally the connectionist model seems more acceptable. More acceptable, easier to believe in, and so PR becomes less of an act of faith.

Anyway will expand when have more time.

cheerio!

Nick

Woah, we're not psyche majors. Some of us aren't even Technical NLP Jargon Speakers.

Can you explain this for the lay people in the audience?

Awesome?

well ..

It's honestly something I went and read up on so this is just a blather on my part ..

"Connectionism is an alternative model of intelligence which has very different properties, and which may be better suited to accounting for general intelligence."

"Parallel distributed processing models assume that cognitive processes depend on paterns of activation in highly interconnecten computational networks that resemble neural networks."

Basically, I think that it's a more scientific explanation for why we learn the way we do and why things click the way they do.

A lot of people have difficulty in processing the whole subconscious thing because they don't want to believe they don't have "control" over something.

To me, and again, I just read a few things, it seems like they are saying similar things but in different terms. Connectionism is huge in the AI market, which is one thing that really distinguishes it from the conscious/sub-conscious things because an AI wouldn't have that but would still potentially be able to "learn", they need a way to explain that.

Please excuse my rambles, I'm tired and not thinking terribly clear.

Tracey

quote:

---

Originally posted by tracey:

well ..

It's honestly something I went and read up on so this is just a blather on my part ..

"Connectionism is an alternative model of intelligence which has very different properties, and which may be better suited to accounting for general intelligence."

"Parallel distributed processing models assume that cognitive processes depend on paterns of activation in highly interconnecten computational networks that resemble neural networks."

---

In a word, yes.

Human beings have always compared the brain to the existing information technology of the day. I think it was Aristotle who said, "Experience is the signet that sets itself upon the wax of memory," or something like that. Memory isn't like a hard-drive, though. Each time we remember something, we re-create the memory based on cues. PhotoReading a book stimulates the "pattern" on which memory of the book is created. Activation strengthens this pattern.

The example I've seen used to demonstrate how memory is recreated is one's own phone number. Because the conscious mind needs to be clear of "clutter" in order to process information effeciently, no one constantly keeps their phone number in mind. Yet, if you were given a page of phone numbers, you could find it quite easily, and without reading every phone number. Your brain would recognize the pattern of the phone number from the first few digits, and your eyes would be drawn to it straight away.

Doing manual activation is much the same. You activate four to eleven percent of the book, but gain somewhere around sixty percent comprehension, because you already know where to look.

I like threads like this... they allow me to ramble.

I don't no the connectionist model.
I do know a little about NN (Neural Nets) and parallel and distributed processing models. None, of them strongly model the way the brains works. At least not how I understand how it works from a physiological view point.

Other comments on the conscious-subconscious issue:

I agree some people have trust (control) issues with accepting non-conscious processing of information.

The AI and learning and no other than conscious. I know about several learning models (AI) and no they don't have a conscious / non-conscious split, although I can see one being developed. I believe we do. I strongly believe that learning is possible without a conscious mind. In fact, I strongly suspect that many life forms do not have a conscious mind and operate with what we call a non-conscious mind.

Now, some might infer an evolutionary idea that the conscious is a higher and more power ful mind. I suspect it is evolutionarily further along, but not necessarily more powerful. It probably serve a different function. However, since is resides in the same organ (let's not do the whole body learning thing )it has many similar characteristics with the "non-conscious" mind.

Well that was much more than my recording a stream of consciousness.

Iam2

Cool! Surprised at the number of posts for this thread: Haven't checked the board for a few days (been busy / slipping into a big black revision hole).
Tracy's explanation of connectionism is pretty much spot-on. One of the reasons i like the model is that it suggests that each connection is capable of 'looking after itself', ie there's not one central processing unit doing all the work. This then surely ups the brain's capacity for speed and storage. It's like 1 bird builds 1 nest but many ants build a huge anthill.
Also, it accounts for the PR step. Part of the connectionist model is the concept of priming (ie 'warming up' the links between ideas). Surely the PR step is high intensity priming?
There's a few other things that i'd to check-up on as well before i say more.

Bye for now!

Nick