I meant, some people can reason visually, some are entirely incapable of visualization; some have internal monologue, some don’t; and so on. Some people may be unable to reflect on their thoughts altogether while still acting normal. The early (childhood) brain damage results in parts of brain taking function of the other parts, which implies that the brain is capable of sort of emerging this function from scratch.
Note: I don’t care how common or rare is particular phenomenon here; if one person on Earth could instantly see number of matches (in the hundreds range) ala Rainman character, human brain is capable of that (with very minor physical changes), and that is amazing diversity even if everyone else had been copies of 1 perfectly ordinary mind upload. Most of people may be thinking in exactly same way, for all I care; there’s still immense diversity if there’s a few percent within which everyone thinks in different ways.
well one can often encounter arguments of how this or that function is ‘hardwired’ by evolution, which makes very little sense in light of a: evolution’s slowness, and b: early brain damage to those regions not always resulting in loss of that function or any strong disadvantage. (perhaps the region where the task usually ends up implemented gets slightly tuned for the task, but that’s it)
The relevance is that the very implementation of e.g. visual memory may differ between individuals, to the point of structuring the data in radically different ways. It seems that as brain develops, there’s a great deal of hill-climbing of some kind performed by the brain to implement each particular function, and different hills end up climbed even for pretty ordinary functions.
I meant, some people can reason visually, some are entirely incapable of visualization; some have internal monologue, some don’t; and so on. Some people may be unable to reflect on their thoughts altogether while still acting normal. The early (childhood) brain damage results in parts of brain taking function of the other parts, which implies that the brain is capable of sort of emerging this function from scratch.
Note: I don’t care how common or rare is particular phenomenon here; if one person on Earth could instantly see number of matches (in the hundreds range) ala Rainman character, human brain is capable of that (with very minor physical changes), and that is amazing diversity even if everyone else had been copies of 1 perfectly ordinary mind upload. Most of people may be thinking in exactly same way, for all I care; there’s still immense diversity if there’s a few percent within which everyone thinks in different ways.
Yes, and that is obvious. The variance in the human population is enormous, no two humans are the same, etc. etc.
I was just mistaking your tone for a sarcastic one, i.e. “this is so obvious that anyone not realising this isn’t worth my time” feeling.
well one can often encounter arguments of how this or that function is ‘hardwired’ by evolution, which makes very little sense in light of a: evolution’s slowness, and b: early brain damage to those regions not always resulting in loss of that function or any strong disadvantage. (perhaps the region where the task usually ends up implemented gets slightly tuned for the task, but that’s it)
The relevance is that the very implementation of e.g. visual memory may differ between individuals, to the point of structuring the data in radically different ways. It seems that as brain develops, there’s a great deal of hill-climbing of some kind performed by the brain to implement each particular function, and different hills end up climbed even for pretty ordinary functions.