Terms of Short-Term Memory

Why does general short-term memory seem to be so… short?

In general, animals seem to have a fairly short time span for active memory of recent experiences. A study of 25 species of animals, found that their average short-term memory was about 27 seconds. Assuming the mind function being used is the subconscious, is there a reason or benefit for this limitation?

The subconscious is a very useful, and perhaps fundamental, function of the mind. It allows vast amounts of memories to be saved, and allows quick access for quick reactions, which are most probable to be beneficial for that individual based on its unique past experiences. By subconscious memory, I’m referring to memory access of any animal, where it is not awarefully or intentionally accessing the memories, or making connections of cause and effect between details of the memory. I further explained my understanding of the subconscious in a post from 4 months ago; Subconscious Subjection. 

The subconscious seems fairly effective, but of course it has limitations, such as detail and quantity of memories. In order for the subconscious to be effective in its function, it has to have focus on certain memories and aspects of memories (as I further explained in a post from 10 months ago; Fundamental Focus). This focus causes a limit on which factors in memory are prioritized, in order to trigger a suitable reaction to those particular factors, by the individual. 

When it comes to any particular experience of an animal, there must be a limit of time leading up to the experience, for the subconscious to save memories of factors connected to that experience. In the circumstances of receiving neurochemical positive or negative reinforcement (more detail in this post; Reinforcement Mechanisms), the subconscious must focus on certain factors within a time frame, which the animal had sensory perception of before the reinforcement. 

For eg, a young rabbit has the experience of being attacked by an eagle, but survives and escapes. Its subconscious will have a time limit on factors which the rabbit perceived before the instance of attack and receiving negative reinforcement via pain and fear. The negative reinforcement it saves in memory, causes the rabbit to avoid various factors (such as the sound or sight of a large bird in the air) which might be relevant to avoid being attacked again. But, it is likely only factors which the rabbit perceived very recently before being attacked, are relevant enough for the subconscious to focus on. If the subconscious linked memory of factors which the rabbit perceived 10 mins prior (such as the smell of berries, or the sound of a tree falling), those factors would likely be unrelated and irrelevant to the cause of being attacked.

Since the subconscious is limited in its connection of cause and effect between factors, as it utilizes conditioning through trial and error, it will save many general factors in memory, leading up to an experience of reinforcement. The factors aren't necessarily relevant or related to the cause of reinforcement, so focus on factors within a shorter time period should increase effectiveness of the function of the process of the subconscious. 

On the other hand, this short memory span can lack effective connection of relevant factors, if some factors of causation occurred too early before the experience. In a typical simple natural environment, it is likely much less common for circumstances to be complex enough for factors which were perceived much time prior to an experience, to be relevant, but it can happen. For eg, in another scenario, the rabbit finds tasty vegetables on an island of a slow river (on the mainland, most food has been eaten by other animals). It took the rabbit 15 mins to find the food on the island, after swimming to it. Even though the cause of finding food is swimming to an island, the subconscious does not link memory of swimming, with the positive reinforcement of the food, as the 15 mins exceeds its short-term memory span. 

A shorter active memory, should cause a narrower range of factors to be focused on in any experience, increasing the probability that the factors which are actually relevant to the cause of experience, are saved in memory and linked with the reinforcement. These aspects of an increase of probability for effectiveness of the subconscious, seem to be some of the; Terms of Short-Term Memory. 

Patience Potential

Is patience really a virtue? What potential advantages does it have? What processes are involved in patience?

Patience is basically willfully waiting. The capacity to wait can be quite beneficial. Simply put, it means if there is a better option which can be gained by waiting, someone with patience will gain, while someone without patience will not. There're many situations throughout life, with some degree of option to wait for something better than would be gained from not waiting. Of course a lot of scenarios have many unknown variables, such as the chance of waiting to actually cause the benefit or not, or the degree of benefit, etc. But on a general basis, with any variant of degree of information known, someone with the ability to wait, is likely to have the advantage, with that extra option, compared to not. For eg, there is a vendor at a market giving free sandwiches as a promo, and the line up is 10 people long. If Hurry Henry has little patience, he will ignore this option, even if he would have considered it better in the end, but Patient Pat has patience, so he at least has the option to get the free sandwich, whether he chooses to or not.

What it takes to have the ability of patience, is another question. 1 major component to increase patience, would be comprehension. An individual needs the capability to comprehend cause and effect, to the degree that they can be aware that waiting a longer time, will cause the effect of a better reward. The concept of awareness of time, is part of this overall capability of comprehension, which allows the benefit of understanding that in the future, circumstances will change. I explained more details of the benefits of this concept in a post from 11 days ago; Time Awareness. 

Without this component of comprehension, an individual can still on occasion, take the option of waiting, in order to gain a benefit, but this behavior would likely have to be developed from being conditioned, subconsciously. This would take many repeated circumstances of very similar factors, in order for the subconscious to develop the connection of positive or negative reinforcement (as further explained in a post from 7 months ago; Reinforcement Mechanisms), with more time passing. 

Besides the downside of the subconscious requiring many repeated scenarios, it is also likely fairly limited in the amount of time which can pass, while still making that connection of reinforcement, with the factors involved in waiting. Subconsciousness seems to show significant priority for immediate reward/ consequences. 

On the other hand, the need for repeated scenarios of the same factors, can be virtually skipped using the process of comprehension. The function of comprehension is gained through conscious thought, with the ability to remember details of cause and effect, as I explained in a hypothesis from 2.5yrs ago; Conscious Comprehension. Being aware of how specific factors cause effects through interaction, allows the ability to apply that knowledge to new circumstances. This includes awareness that waiting a longer time period, will cause factors to change, for a potential benefit. 

Patience seems to be a virtue, in a way that it allows the option for a benefit, which can only be gained from waiting. The process of subconsciousness, mostly works based on instant gratification, voiding the option to wait, while conscious comprehension allows utilizing knowledge of details in situations where waiting will cause more beneficial factors, to be the; Patience Potential. 

Beat Bound Repeat of Sound

Why do humans enjoy the beat of music, but other animals don't?

Pretty much any human seems to enjoy the beat of at least some type of music or another, but when it comes to any other animal, it is very rare from what we know so far. Tests have been done with a few different species of animals, and they can act more calm or more aggressive based on the type of music (including adjusting the pitch and using natural sounds from that species), but this seems different than enjoying a beat and or rhythm. It's likely any species would become more calm or aggressive from hearing sounds which would instinctively be a positive or aggravating sound for it in nature. But enjoying the repeat of sound of a beat, bound,  is un-heard- of in other animals, from what I know. 

Recognizing repetition can be an instinctively appealing aspect, as i further described in a post from 10 months ago; Conscious Recognition. This, combined with sounds which are in themselves instinctively appealing, could be a potential explanation for why people enjoy music so much. But why don't other animals?

The key might be the ability to recognise connected, short-term repetitions of sounds. In order to recognize the repetition of an ongoing beat, the mind has to simultaneously access memory of the current individual segment of beat, as well as the previous beat segments. For simplicity, if each beat segment is considered 1 “factor” (as 1 sound for the memory to store), then multiple beat segments would be multiple factors for the memory to access. Accessing multiple recent beat factors simultaneously in ongoing memory, would be the ability to recognize the connection of repetition, between the factors. This is just the 1st step of a simple regular repeating sound, but once a beat includes multiple pitches and tones repeating, there are more factors for the mind to recognize the repetition of the sequence of sounds. 

Subconscious memory access seems to not be as good at making the required connection between multiple factors. The subconscious can quickly recognize a basic repetition of what it has saved in memory (as I further mentioned in a post from 1.5 months ago; Repetition Recognition), but accessing that factor accurately, along with many additional factors and any connection between them, does not seem to be part of the function of the subconscious. Assuming other animals mostly use subconscious reactions (as I described in a post from 4 months ago; Human Advantage), this could explain why they don't seem to recognize or enjoy the beat of music. This is the general majorative, and as animals evolve, it's likely the most intelligent of them could have occasions of more complex memory functions and the potential for more elements of music.

When the mind uses the ability to access multiple factors in memory, and their connection or interaction, this seems to be the category of conscious memory access. I explained more details of my hypothesis of the function of consciousness in a post from 2.5 yrs ago; Conscious Comprehension. Using the conscious mind, an individual can access memories of multiple beats, as well as multiple factors of sound within each beat. The mind can access the recent memory of the time period of the interaction of repetition between these multiple sounds (factors). 

This may be the fundamental requirement for the mind being capable of acknowledging the basic components of music, and with the complications of the various processes of the mind, this could allow portions of music to then be saved in subconscious memory (kind of like words are saved and accessed in memory). As I described in more detail, in a post from 9 months ago; Subconscious Conscious-Memory Access, this mind function could allow music to be recognized later, even without the same initial degree of consciousness. 

Considering music to involve various segments of multiple factors of sounds, it may be understandable why animals or the subconscious mind does not typically recognize the repetition between multiple segments or beats. Using conscious memory access, humans can more readily make this connection of interaction between factors of beats, and enjoy the Beat Bound Repeat of Sound. 

Accomplice of Accomplishment

What makes something an accomplishment? What causes accomplishment? What effects are there?

A simple way to describe accomplishment might be; achieving something which is desired. Virtually anything could be considered an accomplishment, if someone caused, and wanted it to happen. It is based on the context of any scenario and an individuals’ subjective perspective. Accomplishment can happen by accident, even if the individual didn't intend for it to occur, as long as they caused it, and consider the result to be something they prefer. But the more common method of accomplishment, through causation, would be by intention. 

With intention, comes goal-setting for what is intended in any context or general scenario. Goal-setting seems it would be the main cause and “accomplice” of accomplishment. Quantity of accomplishment should generally be relative to the quantity of goals set. Without goals to drive motivation, accomplishments will only be by fluke, and very rare comparatively. Motivation is a key component, which despite seemingly being sparked by instinct, can still be consciously oriented through understanding, as I further hypothesized in a post from 10 months ago; Motivation Direction. 

If more of a quantity of goals are set, there may be more failures, but also more probability for accomplishments, through motivation. If quality or probability of accomplishment is preferred, fewer goals can be set for focus, or smaller steps of accomplishment can be made toward a larger goal, but few will still no doubt result in more accomplishments, than none. This should apply to various contexts, whether it's an individual, group, or an entire species. 

Accomplishments can be distinct with an outlined specified goal, or gradual from degrees of a goal succeeded. For eg, someone can set a distinct goal of losing 20lbs, or a gradual goal of improving health, with degrees of accomplishment through every minor improvement of exercise or eating healthy. On a large scale, there can be an agreed upon goal for any number of individuals in any separate locations, who have never even met. Yet still, there can be a group accomplishment for all who make any degree of contribution toward the intention. For eg, millions of people can individually have the mutual gradual goal of reducing pollution, and can all make a degree of accomplishment through individual contribution. 

The objective effects of accomplishment, whether small or large, would be mainly mental. The positive reinforcement (as I further described the mechanics of, in a post from 7 months ago; Reinforcement Mechanisms) would have the effect of appeal, satisfaction, and likely motivation for more accomplishments. Subjectively, based on the particular accomplishment, it could have the effect of benefit for others and or allow for more future potential. 

It seems it should be pretty basic, that to achieve success, it should be much more probable through motivation and an intended direction. Whether it's an individual with a specific distinct intention, or many contributors causing gradual mutual achievement, the effects are likely to be satisfactory. Though it can be a subjective concept (as many concepts are), at least in context, initiative of goal-setting seems to be the main; Accomplice of Accomplishment. 

Time Awareness

How does awareness of time affect the mind?

With the mind capability of being aware of, considering, and remembering experiences of the past, comes the potential to dwell, obsess, and be inundated by the past, but also the potential to appreciate, and learn. With the ability to comprehend, predict, and assume the future, also comes the potential to obsess and be over fixated on what might happen, but also the potential to plan and prepare for the future. So is time awareness a benefit or hinder?

The cause of the negative elements of time awareness which I just mentioned, should be important to consider. There may be another cause behind elements such as dwelling and obsessing, which awareness might increase because of detailed thought. Without time awareness, it seems there can still be a form of obsession or over-fixation, caused by experiences of the past. Without awareness of time, i'm assuming the mind state is mostly subconscious, considering lack of awareness and comprehension to be in the definition (as i further explained in a youtube video; What is The Subconscious, and a blog post from 15 months ago; Subconscious Subjection). 

The function of the subconscious mind can cause fixation on factors based on previous experiences, because of significant positive or negative reinforcement connected with similar factors. Trauma or phobias are an example of subconscious negative reinforcement causing a fixation on avoidance, as I further explained in a post from almost 2 yrs ago; Traumaphobia. Addiction is an example of subconscious positive reinforcement causing obsession, as i described in a post, also from almost 2 yrs ago; Addiction Affliction. 

It seems likely that the over-fixation aspects of time awareness are driven by these effects of the subconscious. Awareness and conscious thought would cause the additional effects of the mind going into detail of the past negative experiences, or cause fixation on potential future prospects, based on what the subconscious has learned to strive for. Besides subconscious experiences causing these fixations, instinct can be another drive to obsess on a certain aspect. The cause behind reactions of the mind can be complicated, including instinct and (sub)conscious, as I further hypothesized in a post from 9 months ago; Mind Driver. 

If time awareness is not to blame for the cause of the negative aspects, that leaves the potential to overpower and alter them through understanding and adjusting relevant factors. This includes using the positive elements mentioned at the beginning. The potential to appreciate, learn, plan and prepare in depth should only be plausible with awareness and comprehension. In order to appreciate something significantly, someone needs the ability to think about that factor in detail, and understand the positive causes and effects which it has on other factors. To learn from the past, and plan and prepare for the future, someone needs to comprehend how the factors interacted within a past scenario, in order to alter future factors to their benefit, by predicting the causes and effects of the same factors. 

Being conscious of the past and future, and details of those experiences and possible outcomes, can cause more drastic negative effects of obsession and fixation, but since these are driven by instinct and subconscious, there lies the potential to reformat. Positive effects of appreciation, learning and planning are tools only made available from awareness. With potential of new positives and potential to change negatives, overall there seems to be quite a benefit from; Time Awareness.

I

What defines who I am?

Upon quick questioning, it doesn't seem too difficult to know what makes anyone that person. Perhaps, the general idea that someone is their physical body. With deeper digging, questions can arise to challenge the details of this idea. Who I am, or anyone is, in general, would basically come down to what the common interpretation is, of using that term. Different people could have different perspectives of what applies to define who someone is, but I’ll try to cover what seems to be the most common interpretations, and go into detail of potential rational parameters.

If it’s their physical body, at what point of the body's composition changing, does that change who the person is? According to studies, every cell in the human body is replaced by a new cell, over a 7-10 yr span. Does that make it a new person every 7yrs? Is it still the same person if they become brain dead, or lose all memories? Is a dead body of mostly the same composition, still the same person? If someone’s consciousness (or entire function of brain and memories) is transferred into another person or computer, is that still them?

It seems, at least by what most would likely perceive after considering the details, that a physical body does not effectively define who I am. Since the physical composition changes constantly, and the body could even be discluded (if the mind was transferred) from some perspectives. Perhaps the mind should be included, at least partially. But even if the mind defines who I am, some aspect of the body could likely still be included, since the mind functions based on the body it has used to build its methods of function in experience.

The mind has similar problems to the body as a definition, considering it changes constantly, from every experience that someone goes through. Every experience adds new memories and new neurochemical reinforcement (as further described in a post from 7 months ago; Reinforcement Mechanisms). From new reinforcement, changes likely occur at least to a slight degree, in habits, preferences, and ideologies. 

So it seems neither 100% body composition, or 100% mind composition effectively define who I am. Those ideas could potentially define who I am at 1 given moment, but it would change constantly with time. It seems that common interpretation would be that what defines someone would include a relevant time span. During a time span, perhaps someone can be considered to be; how their mind and body functioned throughout that timespan. 

Which timespan is relevant for defining someone, is likely a broadly changing variable, depending on perspective. A lot of people might consider somebody to be how they functioned throughout their entire life, whereas a lot of perspectives might be that someone is a different person after significant changes in their functions. Perhaps it can be generalized and categorized into 2 types of what defines someone; 1) Someone’s mind’s reactions (which incorporates their body) over their entire life. Or 2) over a period of time, before significant change (which in itself would have to be determined based on particular circumstances) in reactions.

It seems that the mind is likely more significant in defining who someone is, since it is what controls the body, and it is commonly the factor more significantly involved in someone’s reactions, interactions, influences, and decisions through life. But the physical body could still be a factor included, since the function of the mind is based on experience of utilizing that body. The tendencies of the mind over a timespan, seem to be a more applicable outline, than the mind at any given moment, but the length of time seems to be a significant variable based on perspective. Overall, it seems to be my mind that defines the answer to; who am I?

Generalized Subconscious Communication

How is communication incorporated into society and individuals, when used with a more vague and generalized degree of accuracy?

The essence of spirituality is flowing with beauty in freeing our elegance. How accurately was that understood? It sounds fancy, and might make people feel good, but there is likely not a significant degree of accuracy of specific meaning. When someone communicates to a vague degree, without accuracy of intended meaning, this causes a more varying scope of potential interpretation by others. Using generalized terms which are lacking in specific mutual understanding of meaning, causes communication on a more subconscious level.

By subconscious, I mean the mind functioning without the individuals awareness or knowledge of the specific thoughts or memories being accessed. I further described my understanding of the subconscious in a post from 15 months ago; Subconscious Subjection. If terms and description within communication are to a generalized degree, it seems likely that not only the person speaking is using a mind function which is closer to subconscious (than more accurate description would be), but also the person receiving the communication would be interpreting it on a more subconscious level. Both individuals would be accessing the generalized words used, more subconsciously, without accurate understanding of what the words mean. 

Subconscious communication isn't necessarily fundamentally bad, but inaccuracy allows a greater chance for error. With the communicator accessing less distinct understanding of the meaning of words, and less accurate memories connected with those words, it allows a greater chance to use words which are unintended. Also, the individual receiving the communication has less accurate factors to determine the communicator's intended meaning, even if they tried to use more definitive thought processes. If the 1 receiving, simply takes it as it is, they can subconsciously interpret a generalized meaning which has a greater chance of being different from what was intended. 

Along with subconscious access of words, comes the mind's neurochemical positive or negative reinforcement, connected with the words or general ideas, without awareness of the connection of that reinforcement. I explained more of what I mean by this type of reinforcement, in a post from 7 months ago; Reinforcement Mechanisms. Since this type of communication uses more subconscious reinforcement, this can cause a cycle of repeated incorrect reinforcement about a generalized idea. 

Consider my example in the 2nd sentence of this post. That sentence could cause positive feedback because some of the specific words are usually connected with positive feedback, but the overall idea has no accurate intended meaning by the communicator (me). If an idealism lacks accurate distinction of communication of meaning, it can be incorrectly linked with subconscious positive reinforcement. This can be as a result of inaccurate understanding of cause and effect, allowing positivity to be connected to a factor by correlation rather than causation. Basically, a generalized idea can make someone feel good because a certain aspect of that idea gives positive reinforcement, despite the remainder of factors of the overall idea, lacking correct cause and effect. It can become a cycle since the more that the generalized idea is communicated without accurate understanding, the more subconscious positive reinforcement is received (from the communicator or receiver) as a connection with the idea. If many people with the same type of subconscious thinking and communication begin to communicate more and more often with each other, they can cause an increase of growth of an inaccurate reinforcement cycle. 

More vague forms of communication dont seem to fundamentally cause problems, but allow a much higher chance for error, caused by miscommunication and misunderstanding of meaning. In a more simple world, such as the animal kingdom (where this type of mind function likely comes from), this may cause few problems, but in our complex world of accurate information, technology, and society, perhaps improvements can be made with a move towards accuracy, and away from; Generalized Subconscious Communication.