5 ms·
I think that's way too high level. It seems to me that this paper is discussing learning at the level of memorization or motor skills. I would think that beha
by davesque 10y ago
I think that's way too high level. It seems to me that this paper is discussing learning at the level of memorization or motor skills. I would think that behaviors like egoism can't be reliably connected to something at this level.
- jerf 10y agoYou beat me by just a bit. The connection to higher level behaviors is a tempting one, and at least worthy of research, but due to their greater complexity and the way that inhibition and stimulation have less obvious connections to behaviors at higher levels of neural complexity (as the complexity of the neural system goes up you get fun combinations like "inhibition of inhibition" and "stimulation of inhibition" and all kinds of arbitrarily complicated things), I wouldn't leap to conclusions about that.
- derefr 10y agoI wasn't quite trying to communicate egoism; more what the mental process (you could say "subconscious flinch reaction", but that doesn't capture the "physiological-ness" of what's happening) to encountering the kind of contradictory information that the brain "learns" from. That is, new information that contradicts your knowledge usually triggers focused attention (i.e. NMDA activation) in order to facilitate learning. However, overlearning can make the same information be discounted as irrelevant (i.e. a GABAergic signal of "it's okay, I don't need to figure that out.") Explaining at a high level exactly what that "it's okay, don't pay attention to that" signal is rationalized as in conscious experience, is a whole different thing.
- davesque 10y agoWhether you call it egoism or something else, I still think what you're describing is too high level for this research to be applied to it.