Is Dr. NakaMats, and watching this vid, just made my day:

http://www.motherboard.tv/2010/3/3/dr-na...c-inventor

Personally I'm more fascinated with this sort of thing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_discovery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_%28sociology%29

It Seems that my little thread hasn't cought much of an attention....oh well....

nestOr: I've been thinking about how different history books state that a lot (if not all)
of the genius people was half-crazy at the same time.
And I've just read a paper somewhere that indeed there is more similarity in the brains between mentally handicapped or disturbed people, and genius or extremely creative people. I have this theory, that if we suppose / accept that the subconscious is the brain's real drive, i.e. it gives the most power for thinking and new ideas, not the conscious, then it would be a valid conclusion, based on the above, that if the subconscious and the conscious are somehow "closer" to each other, that is, can communicate more directly (whatever that means, and however that happens) it will be more likely that the person will be superior to the average in regards of creativity.... of course what decides if this closer "connection" between the subconscious and the conscious will turn out as a genius or a retard is still an unresolved issue

They're referring to dopamine and information-filtering: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...064610.htm

As we update our models of consciousness via neuroscience, not much room for notions of a 'subconscious' in the traditional sense (see our argument in that animals/robots thread), but strategically balancing metacognition, flow, working/memory, etc., are all pretty important.

See also:

http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2009/11/sp...yarns.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2571074/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...-love-make
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...increase-c
http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2008/02/th..._of_a.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...100800.htm
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content...558&db=all
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1821121/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...16604.html

Semi-related to this thread? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...112157.htm

Bonus, found this in my recent bookmarks: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...125226.htm (also: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...092122.htm)

I think most people don't know what the hell they're talking about when they talk about 'creativity', personally (apparently scientists still find it nebulous as well, re: glancing through the Wikipedia entry on 'creativity'). I also think 'dopamine' is so highly abused in science articles that I prefer to wait until it's been thoroughly 'vetted' before paying too much attention to it. ;p (But I think this is probably fairly solid, given it flows into previous conceptions of creativity and low latent inhibition and highlights the need to find that balance between calculation and spontaneity, information retention and information processing).

Oops, missed this bit that ties back into above links with regards to the DLPFC and improvisation and suchlike: http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2010/03/c...tivity.php

Oh nice, it appears Vandervert has saved me the trouble of using metacognitive terms like 'chunking' and 'retrieval structures' and citing Ericsson ('deliberate practice') and that paper on the 'transition from calculation to retrieval', in their research on creativity/practice, working memory and the cerebellum, re: 'inverse control models' (cognitive, analogous to 'motor'): http://books.google.com/books?id=jS59vnr...rt&f=false

Ooh, interestingly enough, just noticed that I've come across Vandevert's thoughts on language evolution before, and someone had snuck it into the 'nativist' section on Wikipedia as arguing for UG/LAD, even though it was actually the opposite, and goes in line with current evolutionary linguistics. I knew there was a reason I found the argument compelling. ;p

nest0r Wrote:They're referring to dopamine and information-filtering: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...064610.htm

As we update our models of consciousness via neuroscience, not much room for notions of a 'subconscious' in the traditional sense (see our argument in that animals/robots thread), but strategically balancing metacognition, flow, working/memory, etc., are all pretty important.

See also:

http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2009/11/sp...yarns.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2571074/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...-love-make
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...increase-c
http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2008/02/th..._of_a.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...100800.htm
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content...558&db=all
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1821121/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...16604.html

Semi-related to this thread? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...112157.htm

Bonus, found this in my recent bookmarks: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...125226.htm (also: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...092122.htm)

I think most people don't know what the hell they're talking about when they talk about 'creativity', personally (apparently scientists still find it nebulous as well, re: glancing through the Wikipedia entry on 'creativity'). I also think 'dopamine' is so highly abused in science articles that I prefer to wait until it's been thoroughly 'vetted' before paying too much attention to it. ;p (But I think this is probably fairly solid, given it flows into previous conceptions of creativity and low latent inhibition and highlights the need to find that balance between calculation and spontaneity, information retention and information processing).

Oops, missed this bit that ties back into above links with regards to the DLPFC and improvisation and suchlike: http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2010/03/c...tivity.php

Oh nice, it appears Vandervert has saved me the trouble of using metacognitive terms like 'chunking' and 'retrieval structures' and citing Ericsson ('deliberate practice') and that paper on the 'transition from calculation to retrieval', in their research on creativity/practice, working memory and the cerebellum, re: 'inverse control models' (cognitive, analogous to 'motor'): http://books.google.com/books?id=jS59vnr...rt&f=false

Ooh, interestingly enough, just noticed that I've come across Vandevert's thoughts on language evolution before, and someone had snuck it into the 'nativist' section on Wikipedia as arguing for UG/LAD, even though it was actually the opposite, and goes in line with current evolutionary linguistics. I knew there was a reason I found the argument compelling. ;p

Interesting links I'll check them out later, thanks! Actuallly I haven't even thrown a glimpse on them, since my average reading speed is only around 450-500 wpm in english, so it would take (too much) time.
But regardless, I would like to ask another question, on a differet though not totally unrelated topic. Actually I just want to confirm, this, since my doctor has aleready said, that: does (mild) depression really affect mental capabilities and capacity, and if so how? I just don't get the whole idea.
The same goes for self-esteem. The doctor said that a low self-esteem really can, and does affect mental capacity...and I don't understand why? Are there any scientific articles, which can prove or confute these claims?

Ｐｌｅａｓｅ　ｅａｔ　ｔｈｉｓ．．．．．．．　

Raschaverak Wrote:Interesting links I'll check them out later, thanks! Actuallly I haven't even thrown a glimpse on them, since my average reading speed is only around 450-500 wpm in english, so it would take (too much) time.
But regardless, I would like to ask another question, on a differet though not totally unrelated topic. Actually I just want to confirm, this, since my doctor has aleready said, that: does (mild) depression really affect mental capabilities and capacity, and if so how? I just don't get the whole idea.
The same goes for self-esteem. The doctor said that a low self-esteem really can, and does affect mental capacity...and I don't understand why? Are there any scientific articles, which can prove or confute these claims?

I think you should spend more time using Google or something.

Bonus: Changing thoughts key to battling even severe depression

"Moderate to severely depressed clients showed greater improvement in cognitive therapy when therapists emphasized changing how they think rather than how they behave, new research has found."

nest0r Wrote:I think you should spend more time using Google or something.

You're right. Won't happen again.... thnx for the link anyway.