Welcome to subscribe to the [Pharaoh's Fallacy of Brain Science] column to learn more about the analysis and conjecture of the working principle of the brain based on the "Pharaoh's Fallacy".
Article directory
Foreword: The Dilemma of the Life Sciences
The core element of the modern scientific system is the experiment , and the experiment contains the core elements such as objectivity and repeatability . As we all know, modern science based on experiments has made unprecedented achievements in many fields such as physics and chemistry. But looking at the field of life sciences, in comparison, the overall development level can be said to be far behind other fields. Although a large number of theories and advanced technologies have also been born, human beings' cognition of the essence of life and various phenomena and functional principles is still in an extremely preliminary and vague state. Even the word "life" is used in all textbooks and papers. The definition is still very vague. The reason is that compared with other fields, life sciences have too many constraints in front of the core element of experimentation. Take memory-related phenomena as an example, they have significant: ambiguity, subjectivity, concealment, instability, individual differences; there are also some phenomena that have long-term periodicity in the generation and manifestation (for example: long-term memory-related phenomena ); many phenomena are inherently non-repeatable (e.g., near-death, déjà vu, etc.); and some even have ethical and legal implications. These constraints make life sciences face too many unique shackles and helplessness in the face of "experiments". Many life phenomena, we can recognize (at least not absolutely deny) through "common sense" and "experience", but due to the above constraints, they are difficult (or even impossible) to be recognized and used in experiments, and therefore very difficult. It is difficult (or even impossible) to embody value in science. This article does not discuss how to improve the inquiry methods of life sciences, but only tries to explain a very "fuzzy" "memory phenomenon" based on the "Pharaoh's Fallacy".
A "fuzzy" "memory phenomenon": why blind people's hearing "seems" to be more "sensitive" than normal people?
Before reading the following, I hope you have a general understanding of the "Pharaoh's Fallacy" in the [Pharaoh's Brain Science Fallacy] column
Although this statement is not uncommon, this "phenomenon" has many of the above-mentioned "restrictions", so it is difficult to qualitatively (verify or falsify) whether or not this phenomenon actually exists. Since there is no conclusive evidence to falsify at present, this article assumes that this phenomenon actually exists, and I want to use the "Pharaoh's Fallacy" as the basis to try to "explain" the "principle" of the formation of this phenomenon.
Of course, due to the ambiguity of this phenomenon, its explanation method may not be unique. Readers are welcome to propose other explanation methods and debate with Lao Wang.
The blind man A Bing played by Wang Baoqiang in the "Listening to the Wind" chapter of "The Conspiracy" has "sensitive" hearing beyond ordinary people. The characters in the film and television drama naturally cannot be used as an argument, but this story at least does not contradict our experience.
Why is this a "memory phenomenon"?
Some friends agree that this phenomenon exists, but they still ask: Why is this a "memory phenomenon"? Generally speaking, we will interpret this phenomenon as: blind people cannot see with their eyes, and rely more on hearing (in fact, it also includes sense of smell, touch and other senses, but the principle is the same) over time, the ears (sensory organs) naturally become sensitive Well, it has nothing to do with memory?
In fact, it is not. Merely the sensitivity of the ear (sensory organ) cannot make the entire hearing function more sensitive. The word "sensitive" on the one hand refers to high speed ; on the other hand, it refers to: high "resolution" . This article focuses on "resolution" , which in the case of hearing means "the ability to hear the subtler differences between sounds" .
Let's take the classic clip from "Listening to the Wind" as an example: the investigators asked A Bing to listen to the "tick-tack" sound of many groups of transmitters, and suddenly A-Bing pointed out the group of "tick-tock" sounds he was currently hearing. It has appeared before, and it can even be pointed out that it is the same as the previous group. This behavior surprised the audience.
Let's analyze this "listening out" process. If A Bing only has a high "resolution" of his ears, the "resolution" of his memory of sound is no different from ordinary people. Then even if the ear "hears" the difference of the sound, it will still be in the memory of the general and vaguely simple memory as "tick-tock" like ordinary people. When the same "tick-tock" appeared again, he had no reason to point out that he had "heard it before", let alone which group it was.
Another similar example: if we compare the photo scanner to the ear, and the photos stored in the SD card to the memory information. No matter how high the resolution of the scanner, if the resolution of each photo can only be 100x100 pixels, then the resolution that the whole system can achieve is only 100x100 pixels.
Therefore, Lao Wang believes that "memory resolution" is also an important factor in determining "auditory resolution".
Explanation based on "Pharaoh's Fallacy"
Assuming that the previous derivation is correct, how is the "resolution of memory" improved in the "Pharaoh's Fallacy"?
You can start by reviewing the discussion of how memories are stored in The Pharaoh Fallacy . The following is only a brief description.
In the "Pharaoh's Fallacy" , normal people's visual memory occupies the visible light band to store "original", and the non-visible light band is used to store other forms of memory information. Blind people do not need to store visual memory, and naturally a wider frequency band is used to store other forms of memory such as hearing, and the "resolution of memory" is naturally improved.
The so-called "almost" unencoded and "authentic"
memory of the original form of information exists in the form of continuous (analog) signals.
According to macromolecular coding, memory needs to be sampled and convert continuous (analog) signals into discrete (digital) signals, and there must be a complex and unified coding rule to ensure that memory information can be decoded and recognized;
according to Lao Wang The theory of: memory information always exists in the form of continuous (mode) signals, even if it needs to be converted between different physical carriers (medium) such as electricity/light, it is only a simple linear mapping relationship, so it is called basic "almost" without coding , or the original flavor.
An additional note: the resolution upscaling process in the "Pharaoh's Fallacy" requires no "encoding rules" (because no encoding at all) and is a gradual process.
Explanation based on the "macromolecular coding theory"
As mentioned in the above quote, the memory storage process of any kind of "macromolecular coding theory" is far more complicated than the "Pharaoh's fallacy" (and is currently only speculation). If it is explained by "the theory of macromolecular coding", then the memory storage method of blind people seems to have different coding rules than ordinary people? And if it is an acquired blind person, his hearing sensitivity should be gradually improved, so is it necessary to constantly modify the coding rules? Be aware that this is an extremely complex and huge project. If a blind man regains his sight after treatment, will he return to his previous coding rules? Moreover, the change of coding rules should be a process of "mutation". When will this process occur? In short, due to its extreme complexity, the "macromolecular coding theory" can be said to be full of thorns in explaining some complex and changeable memory behaviors.
When proponents of "macromolecular coding theory" have no way of explaining, they are always willing to pin the answer to an infinitely complex system. But complexity may not solve all problems, on the contrary, it will bring new problems. Welcome everyone to read another blog post by Lao Wang, "Talking about Macromolecular Coding Theory and Lao Wang's Fallacy from the Perspective of Evolution"
About acquired blindness
The above explanation has a blind spot, that is: if a person already has visual memory and then becomes blind, that is, acquired blindness. Could his pre-blind visual memories conflict with other memories occupying the visual frequency band after his blindness? And what will be the relationship between the memory before and after?
Answer the first question first: there will be no conflict between the front and rear memories, and the linear queue of the memory scene is still continuously and "original" transported to the memory space. The previous visual memory still exists "original", but gradually The non-visual memory has a wider frequency band. This is why blind people who become blind the day after tomorrow can still recall their visual memory once they regain their sight.
To answer the second question (since you have read this, please allow Lao Wang to explain (guess)): The speculation on "memory space X" and the memory storage method in "Pharaoh's Fallacy" is very preliminary. To go further: "Memory Space X" not only stores memory information, but must also process it. The mainstream memory theory also agrees with "memory processing", the difference is that Lao Wang conjectures that memory information is only a "pathway" to the cerebral cortex, and the key location of memory processing is "memory space X". The processing of memory can even "connect" information from different senses with a long interval before and after. I always wonder, is this the essence of "synaesthesia" in literary rhetoric?
There is even a more common and common phenomenon (of course, also very vague), such as: a composer friend listens to you a piece of his new composition (note: this is a completely new piece of music that you have never heard), You closed your eyes and enjoyed it for a while and asked him: It sounds great! This piece reminds me of the idyllic scenery under the bright spring sun in my childhood. Lao Wang feels that this phenomenon is also a kind of "synesthesia" in essence.
Summary: Is there a better explanation?
Based on the "Pharaoh Fallacy", this article attempts to explain a "fuzzy" phenomenon that may not exist at all. Next, I would like to ask the readers two questions:
- Are there studies and experiments that prove the existence or non-existence of this phenomenon?
- If it exists is there a better theory to explain it?