Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Focus

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 1:45:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The problem with intention is it directs one's focus, naturally, to the point of exclusion. It demands one's attention even, at times, at the expense of one's self. It is a very difficult, if not impossible, task for the individual to focus his, or her, attention on one's own personal needs and the needs of others; the person who tries to do so can only do so while meeting common needs or by adulterating the quality of one's attention; in other words, his, or her, focus is diluted with conflicting interests.

The theory of multitasking works, only, if the quality of the worker is of very little value. The worker's attention is by necessity fragmented and the intention of the worker suffers. As intent, or purpose, becomes diluted to the point of homogeneity, the worker's occupation becomes meaningless and the varied tasks become trivial. The same is true with interpersonal relationships. As one desires to build connections with other people, he, or she, dilutes his, or her, attention by the number of relationships; quality suffers at the hands of quantity. If too many (and, too many is no great number) relationships receive comparable treatment, the relationships do not only become overwhelming but eventually unfulfilling to all parties involved. The degree of expenditure is felt, most acutely, by the one with the greatest number of relationships; however, the sense of unfulfillment and triviality effects the entire group. In other words, the individual with the greatest number of relationships remains overwhelmed and unfulfilled, and those with whom he, or she, is in relationships have little appreciation for the individual's efforts.

Focus does not take on greater resolution as it expands.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 3:21:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Forget your anniversary again? lol

At 4/22/2015 1:45:23 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The problem with intention is it directs one's focus, naturally, to the point of exclusion. It demands one's attention even, at times, at the expense of one's self. It is a very difficult, if not impossible, task for the individual to focus his, or her, attention on one's own personal needs and the needs of others; the person who tries to do so can only do so while meeting common needs or by adulterating the quality of one's attention; in other words, his, or her, focus is diluted with conflicting interests.

The theory of multitasking works, only, if the quality of the worker is of very little value. The worker's attention is by necessity fragmented and the intention of the worker suffers. As intent, or purpose, becomes diluted to the point of homogeneity, the worker's occupation becomes meaningless and the varied tasks become trivial. The same is true with interpersonal relationships. As one desires to build connections with other people, he, or she, dilutes his, or her, attention by the number of relationships; quality suffers at the hands of quantity. If too many (and, too many is no great number) relationships receive comparable treatment, the relationships do not only become overwhelming but eventually unfulfilling to all parties involved. The degree of expenditure is felt, most acutely, by the one with the greatest number of relationships; however, the sense of unfulfillment and triviality effects the entire group. In other words, the individual with the greatest number of relationships remains overwhelmed and unfulfilled, and those with whom he, or she, is in relationships have little appreciation for the individual's efforts.

Focus does not take on greater resolution as it expands.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 9:14:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 3:21:00 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
Forget your anniversary again? lol

Yes. Happy anniversary to me! Happy anniversary to me! Happy anniversary Dear Me! Happy anniversary to me.



At 4/22/2015 1:45:23 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The problem with intention is it directs one's focus, naturally, to the point of exclusion. It demands one's attention even, at times, at the expense of one's self. It is a very difficult, if not impossible, task for the individual to focus his, or her, attention on one's own personal needs and the needs of others; the person who tries to do so can only do so while meeting common needs or by adulterating the quality of one's attention; in other words, his, or her, focus is diluted with conflicting interests.

The theory of multitasking works, only, if the quality of the worker is of very little value. The worker's attention is by necessity fragmented and the intention of the worker suffers. As intent, or purpose, becomes diluted to the point of homogeneity, the worker's occupation becomes meaningless and the varied tasks become trivial. The same is true with interpersonal relationships. As one desires to build connections with other people, he, or she, dilutes his, or her, attention by the number of relationships; quality suffers at the hands of quantity. If too many (and, too many is no great number) relationships receive comparable treatment, the relationships do not only become overwhelming but eventually unfulfilling to all parties involved. The degree of expenditure is felt, most acutely, by the one with the greatest number of relationships; however, the sense of unfulfillment and triviality effects the entire group. In other words, the individual with the greatest number of relationships remains overwhelmed and unfulfilled, and those with whom he, or she, is in relationships have little appreciation for the individual's efforts.

Focus does not take on greater resolution as it expands.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 9:35:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 1:45:23 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Focus does not take on greater resolution as it expands.

Your post seems to treat attention as a kind of fixed frame; so that, say I had 'five units' of attention.. I could either use 1 point each on 5 different people, or use all 5 on one person (or all the other possible allocations,) and thus making compromises between quantity and depth.

While this is certainly an apt metaphor in some cases, we should keep in mind that it is only a metaphor, and avoid ruling out the alternative; that the framework itself can expand, or even change form entirely. In fact, if we really thought that the first metaphor was the entire picture, then learning (and actually, life in general) would be a kind of mechanical process. This is what I'm reminded of when Ayn Rand talked about there only being two alternatives, focus or un-focus. This seems to me to be the result of becoming too entrenched within an overly reductionist analogy.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 2:07:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Your post seems to treat attention as a kind of fixed frame; so that, say I had 'five units' of attention.. I could either use 1 point each on 5 different people, or use all 5 on one person (or all the other possible allocations,) and thus making compromises between quantity and depth.

While this is certainly an apt metaphor in some cases, we should keep in mind that it is only a metaphor, and avoid ruling out the alternative; that the framework itself can expand, or even change form entirely. In fact, if we really thought that the first metaphor was the entire picture, then learning (and actually, life in general) would be a kind of mechanical process. This is what I'm reminded of when Ayn Rand talked about there only being two alternatives, focus or un-focus. This seems to me to be the result of becoming too entrenched n an overly reductionist analogy.

Even though it's tempting to believe attention or any other effort on our part were unquantifiable, the biological and medical sciences unashamedly teach us that's not the case. The brain, like any other organ, even though it grows in our formidable years and appears to have plasticity throughout its life declines, most noticeably, in its cognitive function as we age. Its agility is markedly lost as we grow older.

To dismiss one's human frailties and expend one's self to the point of exhaustion ages an individual at a greater rate than is tolerable.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 2:40:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Multitasking makes us old quicker? To live longer its better to stay single and have no friends. Only do one thing at a time and focus fully on what we doing. Am I interpreting that right?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 5:31:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Multitasking makes us old quicker? :To live longer its better to stay single and have no friends. Only do one thing at a time and focus fully on what we doing. Am I interpreting that right?

Stress ages us, and chronic stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system puts our bodies in a diseased state. You, somehow, are under the impression that an overly stimulated central nervous system bears no detrimental consequences, even though the other organs of the body, such as the liver and the kidneys, clearly do. It is well known an overly taxing use of the liver through the filtration of alcohol causes liver damage and the consumption of high quantities of protein is a tremendous stress on the kidneys. However, even though the brain being a physical organ with a limited number of nerve cells, somehow has an unfettered capacity.

Researchers studying Claude Shannon's theory on the mathematics of communication in the 1940's "...expected that the human brain would show a tremendous information processing capability. Interestingly enough, when researchers sought to measure information processing capabilities during 'intelligent' or 'conscious'.activities, such as reading or piano playing, they came up with a maximum capability of less than 50 bits per second. For example, a typical reading rate of 300 words per minute works out to about 5 words per second. Assuming an average of 5 characters per word and roughly 2 bits per character yields the aforementioned rate of 50 bits per second. Clearly, the exact number depends on various assumptions and could vary depending on the individual and the task being performed. It is known, however, that the senses gather some 11 million bits per second from the environment.

The table Information transmission rates of the senses shows how much information is processed by each of the five senses. This table immediately directs attention to the problem of determining what is happening to all this data. In other words, the human body sends 11 million bits per second to the brain for processing, yet the conscious mind seems to be able to process only 50 bits per second." -http://www.britannica.com...

Your belief in the limitless capacity of the brain to focus on infinite amounts of data is not born out by research. If you have difficulty accepting that try focusing on more than one conversation, simultaneously.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 11:57:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm not arguing with you. I happen to agree with your sentiments. I was merely confirming that i understand you correctly.

At 5/10/2015 5:31:22 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Multitasking makes us old quicker? :To live longer its better to stay single and have no friends. Only do one thing at a time and focus fully on what we doing. Am I interpreting that right?



Stress ages us, and chronic stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system puts our bodies in a diseased state. You, somehow, are under the impression that an overly stimulated central nervous system bears no detrimental consequences, even though the other organs of the body, such as the liver and the kidneys, clearly do. It is well known an overly taxing use of the liver through the filtration of alcohol causes liver damage and the consumption of high quantities of protein is a tremendous stress on the kidneys. However, even though the brain being a physical organ with a limited number of nerve cells, somehow has an unfettered capacity.

Researchers studying Claude Shannon's theory on the mathematics of communication in the 1940's "...expected that the human brain would show a tremendous information processing capability. Interestingly enough, when researchers sought to measure information processing capabilities during 'intelligent' or 'conscious'.activities, such as reading or piano playing, they came up with a maximum capability of less than 50 bits per second. For example, a typical reading rate of 300 words per minute works out to about 5 words per second. Assuming an average of 5 characters per word and roughly 2 bits per character yields the aforementioned rate of 50 bits per second. Clearly, the exact number depends on various assumptions and could vary depending on the individual and the task being performed. It is known, however, that the senses gather some 11 million bits per second from the environment.

The table Information transmission rates of the senses shows how much information is processed by each of the five senses. This table immediately directs attention to the problem of determining what is happening to all this data. In other words, the human body sends 11 million bits per second to the brain for processing, yet the conscious mind seems to be able to process only 50 bits per second." -http://www.britannica.com...

Your belief in the limitless capacity of the brain to focus on infinite amounts of data is not born out by research. If you have difficulty accepting that try focusing on more than one conversation, simultaneously.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 6:21:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 2:07:50 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Your post seems to treat attention as a kind of fixed frame; so that, say I had 'five units' of attention.. I could either use 1 point each on 5 different people, or use all 5 on one person (or all the other possible allocations,) and thus making compromises between quantity and depth.



While this is certainly an apt metaphor in some cases, we should keep in mind that it is only a metaphor, and avoid ruling out the alternative; that the framework itself can expand, or even change form entirely. In fact, if we really thought that the first metaphor was the entire picture, then learning (and actually, life in general) would be a kind of mechanical process. This is what I'm reminded of when Ayn Rand talked about there only being two alternatives, focus or un-focus. This seems to me to be the result of becoming too entrenched n an overly reductionist analogy.

Even though it's tempting to believe attention or any other effort on our part were unquantifiable, the biological and medical sciences unashamedly teach us that's not the case.

That might be what you learn from biological and medical sciences, but that is not what they teach.

The brain, like any other organ, even though it grows in our formidable years and appears to have plasticity throughout its life declines, most noticeably, in its cognitive function as we age. Its agility is markedly lost as we grow older.

To dismiss one's human frailties and expend one's self to the point of exhaustion ages an individual at a greater rate than is tolerable.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 6:33:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2015 5:31:22 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Multitasking makes us old quicker? :To live longer its better to stay single and have no friends. Only do one thing at a time and focus fully on what we doing. Am I interpreting that right?



Stress ages us, and chronic stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system puts our bodies in a diseased state. You, somehow, are under the impression that an overly stimulated central nervous system bears no detrimental consequences, even though the other organs of the body, such as the liver and the kidneys, clearly do. It is well known an overly taxing use of the liver through the filtration of alcohol causes liver damage and the consumption of high quantities of protein is a tremendous stress on the kidneys. However, even though the brain being a physical organ with a limited number of nerve cells, somehow has an unfettered capacity.

Researchers studying Claude Shannon's theory on the mathematics of communication in the 1940's "...expected that the human brain would show a tremendous information processing capability. Interestingly enough, when researchers sought to measure information processing capabilities during 'intelligent' or 'conscious'.activities, such as reading or piano playing, they came up with a maximum capability of less than 50 bits per second. For example, a typical reading rate of 300 words per minute works out to about 5 words per second. Assuming an average of 5 characters per word and roughly 2 bits per character yields the aforementioned rate of 50 bits per second. Clearly, the exact number depends on various assumptions

No kidding, and your entire approach is based on false assumptions. Digital processing has almost nothing to do with the manner in which our brains function.

and could vary depending on the individual and the task being performed. It is known, however, that the senses gather some 11 million bits per second from the environment.

The table Information transmission rates of the senses shows how much information is processed by each of the five senses. This table immediately directs attention to the problem of determining what is happening to all this data. In other words, the human body sends 11 million bits per second to the brain for processing, yet the conscious mind seems to be able to process only 50 bits per second." -http://www.britannica.com...

Your belief in the limitless capacity of the brain to focus on infinite amounts of data is not born out by research. If you have difficulty accepting that try focusing on more than one conversation, simultaneously.

In a thread filled with false dilemmas, this is a whopper of a false dilemma. Either you can focus on more than one conversation simultaneously, or the brain has limitless capacity to focus on infinite amounts of data? Seriously?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 7:07:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
What is "one thing"? I can focus on the idea of "World War II", and I don't need to focus on each of the millions of people involved with it. Indeed, I might find myself more taxed in thinking about a single person, than I am in thinking about WWII or the planet earth, even though generally we see the latter two as involving incomparably more 'units'. This indicates to me that the issue is much less about the quantity of objects of thought, but rather is more a function of way we structure and process thoughts.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 7:18:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
obviously. The deciding factor being priority. That is why its hard to focus on what a woman says. We all know what your priority is. Lol I'm obviously refering to whatever sport you watching on tv.
On that point, have you ever noticed that guys stop chewing and a fork will hover in front of their mouth when something interesting happens? We can't chew and focus on sport at the same time.

At 5/11/2015 7:07:43 AM, sdavio wrote:
What is "one thing"? I can focus on the idea of "World War II", and I don't need to focus on each of the millions of people involved with it. Indeed, I might find myself more taxed in thinking about a single person, than I am in thinking about WWII or the planet earth, even though generally we see the latter two as involving incomparably more 'units'. This indicates to me that the issue is much less about the quantity of objects of thought, but rather is more a function of way we structure and process thoughts.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 9:42:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2015 11:57:37 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
I'm not arguing with you. I happen to agree with your sentiments. I was merely confirming that i understand you correctly.

Sorry. Sometimes, I get on the defensive.


At 5/10/2015 5:31:22 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Multitasking makes us old quicker? :To live longer its better to stay single and have no friends. Only do one thing at a time and focus fully on what we doing. Am I interpreting that right?



Stress ages us, and chronic stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system puts our bodies in a diseased state. You, somehow, are under the impression that an overly stimulated central nervous system bears no detrimental consequences, even though the other organs of the body, such as the liver and the kidneys, clearly do. It is well known an overly taxing use of the liver through the filtration of alcohol causes liver damage and the consumption of high quantities of protein is a tremendous stress on the kidneys. However, even though the brain being a physical organ with a limited number of nerve cells, somehow has an unfettered capacity.

Researchers studying Claude Shannon's theory on the mathematics of communication in the 1940's "...expected that the human brain would show a tremendous information processing capability. Interestingly enough, when researchers sought to measure information processing capabilities during 'intelligent' or 'conscious'.activities, such as reading or piano playing, they came up with a maximum capability of less than 50 bits per second. For example, a typical reading rate of 300 words per minute works out to about 5 words per second. Assuming an average of 5 characters per word and roughly 2 bits per character yields the aforementioned rate of 50 bits per second. Clearly, the exact number depends on various assumptions and could vary depending on the individual and the task being performed. It is known, however, that the senses gather some 11 million bits per second from the environment.

The table Information transmission rates of the senses shows how much information is processed by each of the five senses. This table immediately directs attention to the problem of determining what is happening to all this data. In other words, the human body sends 11 million bits per second to the brain for processing, yet the conscious mind seems to be able to process only 50 bits per second." -http://www.britannica.com...

Your belief in the limitless capacity of the brain to focus on infinite amounts of data is not born out by research. If you have difficulty accepting that try focusing on more than one conversation, simultaneously.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 9:48:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 6:33:00 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 5/10/2015 5:31:22 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Multitasking makes us old quicker? :To live longer its better to stay single and have no friends. Only do one thing at a time and focus fully on what we doing. Am I interpreting that right?



Stress ages us, and chronic stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system puts our bodies in a diseased state. You, somehow, are under the impression that an overly stimulated central nervous system bears no detrimental consequences, even though the other organs of the body, such as the liver and the kidneys, clearly do. It is well known an overly taxing use of the liver through the filtration of alcohol causes liver damage and the consumption of high quantities of protein is a tremendous stress on the kidneys. However, even though the brain being a physical organ with a limited number of nerve cells, somehow has an unfettered capacity.

Researchers studying Claude Shannon's theory on the mathematics of communication in the 1940's "...expected that the human brain would show a tremendous information processing capability. Interestingly enough, when researchers sought to measure information processing capabilities during 'intelligent' or 'conscious'.activities, such as reading or piano playing, they came up with a maximum capability of less than 50 bits per second. For example, a typical reading rate of 300 words per minute works out to about 5 words per second. Assuming an average of 5 characters per word and roughly 2 bits per character yields the aforementioned rate of 50 bits per second. Clearly, the exact number depends on various assumptions

No kidding, and your entire approach is based on false assumptions. Digital processing has almost nothing to do with the manner in which our brains function.

and could vary depending on the individual and the task being performed. It is known, however, that the senses gather some 11 million bits per second from the environment.

The table Information transmission rates of the senses shows how much information is processed by each of the five senses. This table immediately directs attention to the problem of determining what is happening to all this data. In other words, the human body sends 11 million bits per second to the brain for processing, yet the conscious mind seems to be able to process only 50 bits per second." -http://www.britannica.com...

Your belief in the limitless capacity of the brain to focus on infinite amounts of data is not born out by research. If you have difficulty accepting that try focusing on more than one conversation, simultaneously.

In a thread filled with false dilemmas, this is a whopper of a false dilemma. Either you can focus on more than one conversation simultaneously, or the brain has limitless capacity to focus on infinite amounts of data? Seriously?

The point being you can't accomplish so simple a task as focusing on more than one conversation at a time.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 10:02:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What is "one thing"? I can focus on the idea of "World War II", and I don't need to focus on each of the millions of people involved with it. Indeed, I might find myself more taxed in thinking about a single person, than I am in thinking about WWII or the planet earth, even though generally we see the latter two as involving incomparably more 'units'. This indicates to me that the issue is much less about the quantity of objects of thought, but rather is more a function of way we structure and process thoughts.

I agree with you, wholeheartedly; it is less about the complexity of a thing and more about the significance we give it.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 12:44:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
but is speed of reading a accurate judge of intelligence? According to your theory the faster reader exhibits faster processing speeds. yet grasping concepts involves lateral thinking. Connecting multiple ideas. If we could really only focus on one idea we could never connect different ideas.

At 5/11/2015 10:02:24 PM, s-anthony wrote:
What is "one thing"? I can focus on the idea of "World War II", and I don't need to focus on each of the millions of people involved with it. Indeed, I might find myself more taxed in thinking about a single person, than I am in thinking about WWII or the planet earth, even though generally we see the latter two as involving incomparably more 'units'. This indicates to me that the issue is much less about the quantity of objects of thought, but rather is more a function of way we structure and process thoughts.



I agree with you, wholeheartedly; it is less about the complexity of a thing and more about the significance we give it.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 8:12:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 9:48:57 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/11/2015 6:33:00 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 5/10/2015 5:31:22 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Multitasking makes us old quicker? :To live longer its better to stay single and have no friends. Only do one thing at a time and focus fully on what we doing. Am I interpreting that right?



Stress ages us, and chronic stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system puts our bodies in a diseased state. You, somehow, are under the impression that an overly stimulated central nervous system bears no detrimental consequences, even though the other organs of the body, such as the liver and the kidneys, clearly do. It is well known an overly taxing use of the liver through the filtration of alcohol causes liver damage and the consumption of high quantities of protein is a tremendous stress on the kidneys. However, even though the brain being a physical organ with a limited number of nerve cells, somehow has an unfettered capacity.

Researchers studying Claude Shannon's theory on the mathematics of communication in the 1940's "...expected that the human brain would show a tremendous information processing capability. Interestingly enough, when researchers sought to measure information processing capabilities during 'intelligent' or 'conscious'.activities, such as reading or piano playing, they came up with a maximum capability of less than 50 bits per second. For example, a typical reading rate of 300 words per minute works out to about 5 words per second. Assuming an average of 5 characters per word and roughly 2 bits per character yields the aforementioned rate of 50 bits per second. Clearly, the exact number depends on various assumptions

No kidding, and your entire approach is based on false assumptions. Digital processing has almost nothing to do with the manner in which our brains function.

and could vary depending on the individual and the task being performed. It is known, however, that the senses gather some 11 million bits per second from the environment.

The table Information transmission rates of the senses shows how much information is processed by each of the five senses. This table immediately directs attention to the problem of determining what is happening to all this data. In other words, the human body sends 11 million bits per second to the brain for processing, yet the conscious mind seems to be able to process only 50 bits per second." -http://www.britannica.com...

Your belief in the limitless capacity of the brain to focus on infinite amounts of data is not born out by research. If you have difficulty accepting that try focusing on more than one conversation, simultaneously.

In a thread filled with false dilemmas, this is a whopper of a false dilemma. Either you can focus on more than one conversation simultaneously, or the brain has limitless capacity to focus on infinite amounts of data? Seriously?

The point being you can't accomplish so simple a task as focusing on more than one conversation at a time.

By definition, to focus on something is to attend to it to the exclusion of other things. Your point is that focusing and not focusing aren't the same thing? Is that supposed to be profound?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 8:25:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
but is speed of reading a accurate judge of intelligence? According to your theory the faster reader exhibits faster processing speeds. yet grasping concepts involves lateral thinking. Connecting multiple ideas. If we could really only focus on one idea we could never connect different ideas.

Ideational content is emotionally charged, and certain ideas hold more value, significance, and meaning than others. In other words, not all ideational content garners equal importance and therefore requires less cognitive energy. In saying on average the mind is able to process fifty bits of information (and, that number is questionable; for, other researchers have found the number upwards of 120,) one is not saying there is a uniformity among stimuli; if it were, a skilled typist would find it very difficult to type and answer phone calls at the same time and a talented pianist wouldn't be able to interact with other musicians while he, or she, is playing the piano.

As we process information, new data is interpreted using that which we already know. Understanding not only requires the acquisition of new information but, also, the retrieval of old.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 8:28:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 8:12:21 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 5/11/2015 9:48:57 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/11/2015 6:33:00 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 5/10/2015 5:31:22 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Multitasking makes us old quicker? :To live longer its better to stay single and have no friends. Only do one thing at a time and focus fully on what we doing. Am I interpreting that right?



Stress ages us, and chronic stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system puts our bodies in a diseased state. You, somehow, are under the impression that an overly stimulated central nervous system bears no detrimental consequences, even though the other organs of the body, such as the liver and the kidneys, clearly do. It is well known an overly taxing use of the liver through the filtration of alcohol causes liver damage and the consumption of high quantities of protein is a tremendous stress on the kidneys. However, even though the brain being a physical organ with a limited number of nerve cells, somehow has an unfettered capacity.

Researchers studying Claude Shannon's theory on the mathematics of communication in the 1940's "...expected that the human brain would show a tremendous information processing capability. Interestingly enough, when researchers sought to measure information processing capabilities during 'intelligent' or 'conscious'.activities, such as reading or piano playing, they came up with a maximum capability of less than 50 bits per second. For example, a typical reading rate of 300 words per minute works out to about 5 words per second. Assuming an average of 5 characters per word and roughly 2 bits per character yields the aforementioned rate of 50 bits per second. Clearly, the exact number depends on various assumptions

No kidding, and your entire approach is based on false assumptions. Digital processing has almost nothing to do with the manner in which our brains function.

and could vary depending on the individual and the task being performed. It is known, however, that the senses gather some 11 million bits per second from the environment.

The table Information transmission rates of the senses shows how much information is processed by each of the five senses. This table immediately directs attention to the problem of determining what is happening to all this data. In other words, the human body sends 11 million bits per second to the brain for processing, yet the conscious mind seems to be able to process only 50 bits per second." -http://www.britannica.com...

Your belief in the limitless capacity of the brain to focus on infinite amounts of data is not born out by research. If you have difficulty accepting that try focusing on more than one conversation, simultaneously.

In a thread filled with false dilemmas, this is a whopper of a false dilemma. Either you can focus on more than one conversation simultaneously, or the brain has limitless capacity to focus on infinite amounts of data? Seriously?

The point being you can't accomplish so simple a task as focusing on more than one conversation at a time.

By definition, to focus on something is to attend to it to the exclusion of other things. Your point is that focusing and not focusing aren't the same thing? Is that supposed to be profound?

No. Should it be?
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 9:09:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
muscle memory is learnt. As babies we learn to crawl then walk. Walking no longer requires cognitive thought. Its autonomous. Likewise a pianist learns to play and muscle memory takes over. This frees the mind to focus on something else. I only wish the muscle in some peoples heads would make thinking autonomous.

At 5/13/2015 8:25:29 AM, s-anthony wrote:
but is speed of reading a accurate judge of intelligence? According to your theory the faster reader exhibits faster processing speeds. yet grasping concepts involves lateral thinking. Connecting multiple ideas. If we could really only focus on one idea we could never connect different ideas.




Ideational content is emotionally charged, and certain ideas hold more value, significance, and meaning than others. In other words, not all ideational content garners equal importance and therefore requires less cognitive energy. In saying on average the mind is able to process fifty bits of information (and, that number is questionable; for, other researchers have found the number upwards of 120,) one is not saying there is a uniformity among stimuli; if it were, a skilled typist would find it very difficult to type and answer phone calls at the same time and a talented pianist wouldn't be able to interact with other musicians while he, or she, is playing the piano.

As we process information, new data is interpreted using that which we already know. Understanding not only requires the acquisition of new information but, also, the retrieval of old.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 2:10:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/13/2015 9:09:08 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
muscle memory is learnt. As babies we learn to crawl then walk. Walking no longer requires cognitive thought. Its autonomous. Likewise a pianist learns to play and muscle memory takes over. This frees the mind to focus on something else. I only wish the muscle in some peoples heads would make thinking autonomous.

I think it does, and that's the problem.



At 5/13/2015 8:25:29 AM, s-anthony wrote:
but is speed of reading a accurate judge of intelligence? According to your theory the faster reader exhibits faster processing speeds. yet grasping concepts involves lateral thinking. Connecting multiple ideas. If we could really only focus on one idea we could never connect different ideas.




Ideational content is emotionally charged, and certain ideas hold more value, significance, and meaning than others. In other words, not all ideational content garners equal importance and therefore requires less cognitive energy. In saying on average the mind is able to process fifty bits of information (and, that number is questionable; for, other researchers have found the number upwards of 120,) one is not saying there is a uniformity among stimuli; if it were, a skilled typist would find it very difficult to type and answer phone calls at the same time and a talented pianist wouldn't be able to interact with other musicians while he, or she, is playing the piano.

As we process information, new data is interpreted using that which we already know. Understanding not only requires the acquisition of new information but, also, the retrieval of old.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 3:55:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/13/2015 2:10:41 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/13/2015 9:09:08 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
muscle memory is learnt. As babies we learn to crawl then walk. Walking no longer requires cognitive thought. Its autonomous. Likewise a pianist learns to play and muscle memory takes over. This frees the mind to focus on something else. I only wish the muscle in some peoples heads would make thinking autonomous.

I think it does, and that's the problem.

look on the bright side. At least they think.
jkhiggons
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 11:53:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It might, depends on the person, genetics etc.

Maybe they have an inbuilt function whereby the resolution does increase by means of an evolutionary mechanism, from what it may ordinarily be.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 8:18:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 11:53:37 AM, jkhiggons wrote:
It might, depends on the person, genetics etc.

Maybe they have an inbuilt function whereby the resolution does increase by means of an evolutionary mechanism, from what it may ordinarily be.

I don't believe anything is so rigid to exclude all other possibilities. Just as we are physiologically different, I believe are psyches vary by degree. The problem, I believe, arises, as we try to fit everyone into the same mold.

However, as a species, I believe there are limits to our degrees of divergence.
jkhiggons
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 4:17:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 8:18:19 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/16/2015 11:53:37 AM, jkhiggons wrote:
It might, depends on the person, genetics etc.

Maybe they have an inbuilt function whereby the resolution does increase by means of an evolutionary mechanism, from what it may ordinarily be.

I don't believe anything is so rigid to exclude all other possibilities. Just as we are physiologically different, I believe are psyches vary by degree. The problem, I believe, arises, as we try to fit everyone into the same mold.

However, as a species, I believe there are limits to our degrees of divergence.

I certainly agree