5 ms·

what do you think is the difference between "being in the memory for longer" and "more time to process the thought"?

alok-g 3y ago
I perhaps wrote it suboptimally; sorry about that. I meant the brain having more time to process the thought and thereby also actually processing it to refine it by connecting the dots better with the existing knowledge & understanding by recalling the latter too into the working memory from the long-term memory, as well as perhaps the working memory creating a stronger stimulus for the long-term memory to record better. As an abstraction (which would not match how this actually works in the brain), merely having/holding a thought constant in the (working) memory for longer before transfering it to the long-term memory should not by itself lead to a better long-term memorization and recall, nor to a better understanding of the concepts involved. It could at best strengthen the working memory itself. Please let me know if I misunderstood your question, if I am failing to answer it, and/or, if you think my understanding posited is not correct, accurate or complete. Would be happy to learn back and/or discuss further.
- chenxi9649 3y ago
  Haha it's all good! No need to apologize. I think what you said makes sense! Making connections with existing knowledge definitely strengthens the knowledge beyond simply holding it into your working memory and rote memorizing it. The former feels like it leads to understanding, where as the latter leads to ...memorizing. However, I feel like the difference between the two(understanding/memorizing) is actually closer than most of us imagine!
  - alok-g 3y ago
    Understanding, for the brain, is ultimately memorization too. Memorization need not be understanding. More below: Going by a reasonable approximation/assumption that the the information in the brain is stored as synaptic weights, both understanding and rote memorization would end up as those weights. The difference is how much semantic structuring happens in those neurons/weights. Rote memorization would be closer to relatively unlinked pieces of information whereas understanding would have more cross-linking. The same thing arises for machine learning too. Certain models basically just store all data. When a good model generalizes, it is able to interpolate/extrapolate better to unseen situations, which is going beyong rote memorization. The double-descent phenomenon in large neural networks however is surprising and is something I do not currently understand enough. Upon observing myself, something similar or related seems to happen for the brain too. I've noticed that when memorizing by rote (e.g., practicing a specific song on a piano), I tend to make mistakes when starting out, become better, but then again start making mistakes, and finally improve and settle.

I perhaps wrote it suboptimally; sorry about that. I meant the brain having more time to process the thought and thereby also actually processing it to refine it by connecting the dots better with the existing knowledge & understanding by recalling the latter too into the working memory from the long-term memory, as well as perhaps the working memory creating a stronger stimulus for the long-term memory to record better. As an abstraction (which would not match how this actually works in the brain), merely having/holding a thought constant in the (working) memory for longer before transfering it to the long-term memory should not by itself lead to a better long-term memorization and recall, nor to a better understanding of the concepts involved. It could at best strengthen the working memory itself. Please let me know if I misunderstood your question, if I am failing to answer it, and/or, if you think my understanding posited is not correct, accurate or complete. Would be happy to learn back and/or discuss further.

chenxi9649 3y ago
Haha it's all good! No need to apologize. I think what you said makes sense! Making connections with existing knowledge definitely strengthens the knowledge beyond simply holding it into your working memory and rote memorizing it. The former feels like it leads to understanding, where as the latter leads to ...memorizing. However, I feel like the difference between the two(understanding/memorizing) is actually closer than most of us imagine!
- alok-g 3y ago
  Understanding, for the brain, is ultimately memorization too. Memorization need not be understanding. More below: Going by a reasonable approximation/assumption that the the information in the brain is stored as synaptic weights, both understanding and rote memorization would end up as those weights. The difference is how much semantic structuring happens in those neurons/weights. Rote memorization would be closer to relatively unlinked pieces of information whereas understanding would have more cross-linking. The same thing arises for machine learning too. Certain models basically just store all data. When a good model generalizes, it is able to interpolate/extrapolate better to unseen situations, which is going beyong rote memorization. The double-descent phenomenon in large neural networks however is surprising and is something I do not currently understand enough. Upon observing myself, something similar or related seems to happen for the brain too. I've noticed that when memorizing by rote (e.g., practicing a specific song on a piano), I tend to make mistakes when starting out, become better, but then again start making mistakes, and finally improve and settle.