example of impressive chimp problem solving: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySMh1mBi3cI
if anyone could comment on this I would be delighted.
it's possible that apes are quite intelligent but simply lacking language. it's possible that in the future they can talk to us with implants, and they turn out to be very inventive people, esp if given language--if they can be inventive starting from the same concepts we have access to with language.
one of the thing the human evo paradigm changed is the cost of acquiring a new idea. a chimp has to invent it (or copy it it's true, but in small groups), but a human merely has to hear/read it, from someone he never met. big groups + language + long term memory is probably the main paradigm shifter in human evolution. it might be the "killer apps" that triggered/allowed true cultural evolution to happen.
- chimps and early humans --> isolated software developpers, produce mainly for themselves.
- humans --> customers on an app market, very few developers needed in comparison with users.
what's fascinating to me is that chimps and other monkeys could be stronger than humans on raw reasoning. I'm not entirely sure this is true, but it seems like it. their brain would be like an older technology or software that is lacking certain popular features but that are stronger on certain features that turned out not to be so popular and didn't develop/expand as much.
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 5:27 AM, Colin Dickerman <collin.silvernail@gmail.com> wrote:
Chimps have more working memory than humans!?
I saw a documentary that featured a really smart crow. They have tiny
brains, but can understand and use tools. How long did it take us to
invent the wheel?
On Sep 21, 9:52 pm, Mike <mikebk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Fascinating. Thanks for posting. It makes sense from a computational point
> of view: reasoning requires recursively confronting different pieces of
> information, in a kind of trial&error. The wider the trial (storage and
> coordination of that storage) the better the result.
> What do you think of this?
>
> Also, chimps have a better working memory than humans, and are indeed
> observed to be extremely inventive in many experiments, often more than the
> average human.
> What do you think of this second idea? Confirmations and infirmations
> welcome.
>
>
>
> ...> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:32 AM, genvirO <carsthatdr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > So, based on there findings they cited two important WM elements that
> > are highly predictive of reasoning ability.
> > 1. Storage in the context of processing
> > 2. Coordination
>
> > What do these two elements relate to? Well, the following info
> > describes what is meant here based on the measures used in the study.
>
> > 1. Storage in the context of processing tasks
>
> > The "storage in the context of processing" component of the working
> > memory model was assessed by dual tasks. One processing and one
> > storage task were combined for each trial. The procedure was as
> > follows: First, the materials to be remembered were presented one
> > immediately after another (1-s inter-stimulus interval). Second,
> > participants had to perform a series of CRTs described above, which
> > were unrelated to the material to be remembered. The CRTs lasted for 5
> > s (no matter how many trials the participants had performed within
> > this time) to keep the time between learning and recall constant and
> > to measure the recall independent of the processing speed. Finally,
> > the participants were asked to recall the memory set (see Fig. 1).
>
> > The materials to be remembered were either nouns, digits, patterns
> > (3×3 matrix, partially filled), or spatial locations of dots. The
> > stimuli always had to be recalled in the correct order. For dual tasks
> > with verbal material nouns had to be recalled and, in between, CRT
> > categories task had to be performed. The number of nouns to be
> > remembered increased from 3 to 7. Numerical dual tasks combined CRT
> > odd–even tasks and a series of digits to be remembered. Three items
> > were administered for each memory load, whereas memory loads varied
> > from 4 to 8 digits. Also, two spatial dual tasks were applied. The
> > first one combined CRT pattern symmetry with a task where the spatial
> > location of dots presented (within a rectangle frame) had to be
> > remembered. In the course of the second spatial task, participants had
> > to remember several partially filled 3×3 patterns and perform CRT
> > arrows up–down tasks. The spatial dual tasks consisted of memory loads
> > varying from 2 to 4, each level represented by five items.
>
> > Two scores were obtained from these dual tasks: the number of elements
> > correctly remembered (memory performance) and the log-transformed
> > reaction times for the CRT subtasks. Since the correlations between
> > these two subtask scores were low, and since it is common practice to
> > evaluate storage and processing tasks according to memory performance
> > only (e.g., Daneman & Carpenter, 1980), the analyses were based only
> > on the dual tasks' memory scores.
>
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
>
> > 2. Coordination tasks
>
> > The "coordination" component of the working memory model was measured
> > by monitoring tasks. Changing relations between several independently
> > changing objects had to be monitored. Participants were instructed to
> > detect certain critical relations. In order to compute and to
> > continuously update the relations between the objects, simultaneous
> > access to them was required.2
>
> > The verbal monitoring task consisted of a 3×3 matrix with a word in
> > each of the nine cells. One randomly chosen word was replaced every 2
> > s. The space bar had to be pressed whenever three rhyming words were
> > presented in either the horizontal, vertical, or diagonal line. During
> > one trial, 2 to 5 target rows appeared within 10 to 20 replacements.
> > In the numerical monitoring task, three-digit numbers were presented
> > in each of the 9 cells. Rows with equal last digits had to be
> > detected. One randomly chosen number changed every 1.5 s. After each
> > trial, feedback about hits, misses, and false alarms was presented.
> > Scores were obtained by subtracting false alarms from hits.
>
> > "Flight control" was the first spatial monitoring task. A number of
> > airplanes (ranging from 5 to 9 during the 15 items) represented by
> > triangles moved across the screen in various directions with 4
> > different speeds. Mountains (clusters of brown squares) were located
> > on the screen. Unpredictably, airplanes appeared on the border of the
> > screen. Their flight direction maintained the same until they left the
> > screen. The instruction was to monitor that no plane crashed either
> > with another plane or a mountain. Plane movement could be stopped by
> > pressing the space bar, then one plane had to be chosen by mouse click
> > and redirected. Traffic started again after pressing the space bar.
> > The participants were told that they started with 100 credit points at
> > each trial. Each crash would cost 10 points and each movement stop 3
> > points. The goal was to avoid crashes and to stop the planes as seldom
> > and as briefly as possible. Duration of movement stops was also
> > measured. Without interruption each trial lasted about 12 s. Feedback
> > was given after each trial regarding the number of crashes, the
> > remaining points, and the cumulative duration of movement stops.
> > Scores were obtained by counting the number of crashes (see Fig. 2).
>
> > "Finding squares," the second spatial coordination task, consisted of
> > 8 to 12 red dots randomly located within a 10×10 matrix. Two randomly
> > chosen dots changed their position every 1.5 s. Twenty items were
> > presented. Participants had to press the space bar whenever four dots
> > formed a square. Position and size of the square were not relevant.
> > Scores were obtained by subtracting false alarms from hits.
>
> > On Sep 22, 2:19 pm, genvirO <carsthatdr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Pretty interesting article!
> > > ----------------------------------
>
> > > (2005) Title: Reasoning=working memory=attention
>
> > > Date - Available online 2 March 2005
> > > Journal - Intelligence 33 (2005) 251–272
>
> > > Link -
> >http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/science/article/...
>
> > > Abstract -
> > > The purpose of this study was to clarify the relationship between
> > > attention, components of working memory,
> > > and reasoning. Therefore, twenty working memory tests, two attention
> > > tests, and nine intelligence subtests were
> > > administered to 135 students. Using structural equation modeling, we
> > > were able to replicate a functional model of
> > > working memory proposed by Oberauer, Suess, Wilhelm, and Wittmann
> > > (2003) [Oberauer, K., Suess, H.-M.,
> > > Wilhelm, O., & Wittmann, W. W. (2003). The multiple faces of working
> > > memory: Storage, processing,
> > > supervision, and coordination. Intelligence, 31, 167–193]. The study
> > > also revealed a weak to moderate relationship
> > > between the selectivity aspect of attention and working memory
> > > components as well as the finding that
> > > supervision was only moderately related to storage in the context of
> > > processing and to coordination. No
> > > significant path was found from attention to reasoning. Reasoning
> > > could be significantly predicted by storage in
> > > the context of processing and coordination. All in all, 95% of
> > > reasoning variance could be explained.
> > > Controlling for speed variance, the correlation between working memory
> > > components and intelligence did not
> > > decrease significantly.
>
> > > Link -
> >http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/science/article/...
>
> > > Just for the sake of it, here's the discussion...
>
> > > DISCUSSION:
>
> > > The present study replicated the finding that "storage in the context
> > > of processing" is the best predictor of reasoning. Furthermore, it was
> > > revealed that "coordination" is also a significant predictor of
> > > reasoning. "Supervision" and the "selectivity aspect of attention" had
> > > only little or no impact on reasoning. Moreover, the variance
> > > explained by the "selectivity aspect of attention" predicting
> > > reasoning can be reduced to speed variance. The variance explained by
> > > working memory components (especially "storage in the context of
> > > processing" and "coordination") on reasoning was 95% regarding the
> > > latent factors. However, using a multiple regression analysis, the
> > > explained variance was reduced to 49%. This might be due to the
> > > moderate construct reliability of all constructs and therefore, a big
> > > correction of attenuation occurred.
>
> > > Furthermore, this study replicated the functional facets of the model
> > > proposed by Oberauer et al. (2003), but not the content facets.
> > > Nevertheless, the well-known fact was replicated that the factor
> > > "supervision/speed" correlated only moderately with the factors
> > > "storage in the context of processing" and "coordination" ( [Oberauer
> > > et al., 2000] and [Oberauer et al., 2003] ). The correlation between
> > > "selectivity aspect of attention" and "coordination" was moderate to
> > > high.
>
> > > One goal of this study was to replicate the model proposed by Oberauer
> > > et al. (2003). The excellent global-fit confirmed the structure of
> > > working memory found by Oberauer et al. (2003). However, the content
> > > factors could not be confirmed. This might be due to the reduced
> > > standard deviations and (consequently) lower reliabilities of some
> > > working memory tasks. The present study also replicated two highly
> > > correlated functional facets "coordination" and "storage in the
> > > context of
>
>
> read more »
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To post to this group, send email to brain-training@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to brain-training+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training?hl=en.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To post to this group, send email to brain-training@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to brain-training+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training?hl=en.
No comments:
Post a Comment