OK, NOW you're repeating me!
Steve,
I know this is out of order with your posts, just bear with me.
Bypass conscious study? Not exactly, activation is the conscious study. It is NOT recall until you activate, because it hasn't ever been "called" upon in the first place. Just like it's not re"membered," because it was never made a "member" so to speak of your conscious comprehension. That's what this is about. Conscious comprehension, so that you may USE it to help yourself, give a speech, pass a test, etc.
STILL, you obviously knew it to a degree. I noticed something a while ago, and vera alluded to it ALSO! Memories aren't really recordings of what was "learned" per se, at least they USUALLY aren't. They are basically units made up of existing parts. If I asked you to go to a store, and you went there, you might simply remember that you went to that store to get whatever. The details of the trip may be mostly from other trips to the same place. If I gave you directions, you might use directions from a place you already knew about that is closer to the destination. Likewise, the memory could exist without a route to get there. Remembering a piece you used to get there, etc... might reconstruct the entire memory.
In other words, the mind may be like a mind map, or the tag directory on a compressed file. ZIP,GZIP, etc... store files as just a bunch of pointers to tags(which are parts of the file that are the largest common pieces). If a tag repeats 50 in a file and is 2GB in length, you just saved almost 98GB! Like learning, the BULK of it is easy. That TAG directory is the hardest part of the file to construct. For the brain, that tag directory would be the original learning.
Now the example you gave, of the spanish thing, doesn't really say that the brain isn't capable of what it CAN do, rather isn't aware of what has been done or accomplished.
Right, so it is IGNORANT of that.
Now, can the brain think? Can the brain assume? Can the brain be aware of things?
It's hard to say, because then you might as well say that it's our finger's typing, our mouths talking. Usually we say it's US talking. It's just a perspective, no one is right or wrong, it's just the way it sounds can be debated.
Yes but, ideally, you will only depend on what you KNOW. Even ALEX told brain to depend only on what he knows.
"Don't you see? You just DID!"
I don't see, and what did I do? =D
You said "Now, on the brain being ignorant of its capabilities, I don't know if you can necessarily say that with certainty."
Sho you can't be CERTAIN of what it knows! It is IGNORANT!
Third meaning in dictionary.com: 3. uninformed; unaware.
I know exactly what you were saying about the brain being like a muscle, and while, yes, different parts of the body share some characteristics, i.e.: being able to grow stronger, it's truly not a muscle, in reality, but yes it shares the characteristic of being able to grow in that it holds more information, as muscles hold more protein or whatever happens.
Oh yeah, I know. The brain is almost like a foreign creature to the body. Certain things are needed by the body that can hurt the brain, etc... There is the blood brain barrier, etc.... Both muscle and the brain were, at one point, said to not really grow as far as the number of cells. NOW, they know better. Currently, some DOCTORS speak of the number of muscle fibers growing, and they at least TALK about glial cells replacing dead neurons. EINSTEIN was said to have a lot of them!
They REALLY don't know much about the brain though. When it all comes down to it, they know about what the average high level and barely curious programmer knows about computers. Think about it.... And I know FAR more than the average high level programmer, but I wouldn't attempt to build a CPU from 100% discrete components. Until scientists get to THAT level, maybe they shouldn't be so quick to talk about limitations of the brain.
Anyway, I'm glad we can discuss these different views as we can learn many things from each other. Feel free to respond to my post.
-JackTuff13
Glad to hear it.
