13:56 so imagine your brain 13:56 a network of neurones 13:57 and it generates since its formation, a statistical model of your environment 13:57 very basic at first since it has a very low number of connections 13:57 thus a very low precision 13:58 then, based on your experience of life, physical, social, ... 13:58 it integrates new statistics 13:59 so basically you get a very refined statistical distribution over a network of nodes 14:00 including the ability to simulate other such distribution 14:00 in order to socialize efficiently 14:00 and to optimize your own distribution based on innacuracies you detected 14:01 back and reading 14:01 (finished packing) 14:01 (which is basically what I already wrote before) 14:02 but now, you can imagine extending that network 14:02 because in a way you already do so thanks to previously mentionned simulation 14:02 yes 14:02 but, more directly, when you use the organism that you simulated 14:02 for example when you think a friend can answer a question 14:03 and you actually ask him, you are extending your network 14:03 how can i extend that network faster? 14:03 to include a subpat of his 14:03 yes 14:03 so you update your statistical distribution based on his 14:03 ok, yes 14:03 so in truth you don't have your isolated statistical disbtribution 14:04 but you have a (at least potentialy) network of statistical disbtributions 14:04 yes, right 14:04 but one can suggest that 14:04 it is not limited to human beings only 14:04 but to anything you simulate 14:04 i.e. other animals 14:04 but also tools 14:05 for example a calculator 14:05 or a book 14:05 or a thesis 14:05 yes i was thinking of that 14:05 so you end up with an heterogenous network of statistical distributions 14:05 tools like? 14:05 books? 14:06 (which is also coherent with Tool-use induces morphological updating of the body schema Current Biology, Volume 19, Issue 12, R478-R479, 23 June 2009 http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2809%2901109-9 ) 14:06 yes 14:06 and of course in those tools 14:06 you can include a tool that already has a networked nature 14:07 and then you gather them all together automatically in your brain? 14:08 the Internet, aka the interconnection of network or network of networks 14:08 that will add more complexity and experience? 14:09 yes, every extention adds complexity and thus potentially supports a finner distribution 14:10 and thus able to integrate more experience. 14:11 oh yes makes sense 14:11 * Utopiah thus to links to [[Person.Person]] 14:12 so 14:13 what I meant in that instead of imagining your mind as an isolated statistical distribution, it seems logical to imagine it as the subpart of a larger statistical distribution made by the interconnection of others and their tools 14:14 yes that is right and explains how we collect and gather experience Counter example (with potential bias) 14:16 but... I was thinking 14:17 there are some people that, even if they encounter new situations or new ways to wide their statistical distribution, are not able or not willing to do so 14:18 sure, but it's a deviant behavior 14:18 (deviant in the sense that it doesn't improve the chances of survival) 14:18 I was thinking of Emily 14:18 (yes) 14:20 she had lots of chances and experiences, but still she made me wonder if she effectively gather them the way she should have to grow up 14:21 and how do you explain that deviant behavior? 14:23 incorrect understanding of the learning process and of its advantages 14:24 could be just based on neurochemistry and lower sensibility to dopamine or others chemical released during reward learning 14:24 yet, cant that learning process be considered somehow subjective? 14:24 and/or of a social context 14:24 it's not a free process, it is costly 14:24 so if there is no incentive, it won't be done. 14:25 (which in that closure, is a rational behavior) 14:25 so in Emily case what was missing? 14:25 I guess so 14:26 ? 14:28 in her context it was rational because 14:29 she was able to leverage other statistical distributions through social means more efficiently that others 14:29 she was very good in "asking help" 14:29 so the incentive to learn by herself was lower 14:30 oh yes indeed 14:30 that's a good point 14:30 and since it's a costly process, her return on investment was lower 14:31 yes, makes sense 14:32 still she traveled a lot... 14:32 Paola 14:33 Im not very willing to discuss 1 specific case 14:33 yes 14:33 okok 14:33 sorry 14:33 as I doubt it is necessearly representative 14:33 and relevant 14:34 ok, fair enough :) 14:34 (especially as there is a potential emotional bias) 14:34 (emotional? you mean cause she is a friend?) 14:35 (yes, obviously you are less likely to be objective about someone you know) 14:35 (ok)