You’re approaching a road crossing nearing it some hundred metres, you are badly distracted by a cramp in your lower right leg, involving your foot which is on the eccelerator.

You get half way through the intersection and a car flashed across behind very near you. You realize you didn’t look for traffic and completely missed seeing a give way sign.

The signed speed limit for both roads is 110km/h.

Your initial obvious reaction you feel is shock, followed by relief. You and the other’s escaped an accident, someone might have been seriousy injured or died, + there’s the possible adverse attention from such things.

The shock is partly from not having seen it, and you’ve had some experience from when in nappies and crawling of bumping into things and the physics of it all. There’s been some developing cognitive activity since a toddler regards such things, often after accidents, and in response to near accidents. You’ve observed others accidents too, or heard about them and are glad of the second-hand learning experience.

Back to the near accident I explained earlier, for my purposes here. Some of conceptualizing the risk and that might have happened involves different timing of the two vehicles, which can be the other car being in front of you, or colliding into the side of your car.

The geometry is fairly simple, it’s two vehicles (or lines that intersect) converging at right angles. Simple physics and humans do some intuitive physics.

To consider what may have happened if the timing were different some cognitive tricks simulate different timing possibilities. The other vehicle can be a few seconds earlier, or you might be a few seconds later, makes no difference it’s the same. You’re both doing the signed speed limit, which’s maybe ~30metres/second.

Simulating the different timing to consider a collision requires taking two independent vehicle (lines) and conceptualizing the various intersection possibilities.

The initial attention jolt as the vehicle flashed near behind probably summoned a reminder of the physics, some cognitive activity followed.

My question is of consciousness, some tricks that make it possible. Might being able to alter the timing of such things (like the example given), to simulate of events past with different timings and analyse the other possibilities be one of those tricks.

It seems to me that this is to look backwards (in a sense) to another ‘world’ that didn’t happen. That’s one simple example, yet there is so much it maybe applied.

I’m thinking consciousness is somehow generated from being able to alter parallel threads, alter by simulating timing differences, conceptualize and analyse them.

the mind has lapses all the time

micro sleeps are an example i guess

>It seems to me that this is to look backwards (in a sense) to another ‘world’ that didn’t happen. That’s one simple example, yet there is so much it maybe applied.

It can be sideways rather than backwards. Both in the physical sense of space eg. Missed by that much. Also in the sense of slapstick eg. Relief that that wasn’t me.

mollwollfumble said:

>It seems to me that this is to look backwards (in a sense) to another ‘world’ that didn’t happen. That’s one simple example, yet there is so much it maybe applied.

It can be sideways rather than backwards. Both in the physical sense of space eg. Missed by that much. Also in the sense of slapstick eg. Relief that that wasn’t me.

Where I was going with the idea was the possibility the seeds of some cognitive functions that generaate consciousness originated from processing of geometry, of light, too the forces of moving masses (gravity included), interactions of the two.

That something of the processing of that related the characteristics of light (straight lines, reflection, refraction – bending it by focussing as in the eye too), and moving masses that might interact, like kinetic energy etc. Seems to be a lot of geometry and physics in all that.

Was pondering what maybe needed, say if you take two independent things that interact at some point, that otherwise are independent, then run simulations related different points of interaction. So you might have two threads of cause and effect (compared via clock time), but you can simulate a different relationship of points of interaction.

I’m contemplating whether there’s the seeds of computation and evolving algorithms in the interaction of basic physical forces.

I watched Brain Games the other night, the episode about attentiveness and how the brain sorts incoming information according to priority.

The episode can be viewed here (45 mins)

I was particularly interested by the guy who claimed to be a master multi-tasker; when he was put to the test he fared no better than average.

Divine Angel said:

I watched Brain Games the other night, the episode about attentiveness and how the brain sorts incoming information according to priority.

The episode can be viewed here (45 mins)

I was particularly interested by the guy who claimed to be a master multi-tasker; when he was put to the test he fared no better than average.

Mixed dominance complicates ( potentially but not always) the brain’s capacity to prioritorise thoughts coming in , usually due to the time delay caused by mixed dominance , as the organiser does not have a master control.

Sure. There’s important stuff coming in, there’s unimportant stuff coming in and it’s the brain’s job to filter it. When you focus on something, the ep explains that it’s like a spotlight and you don’t notice what else is happening.

Everyone remembers the netball video, right? (1min 40 sec video)

Divine Angel said:

Sure. There’s important stuff coming in, there’s unimportant stuff coming in and it’s the brain’s job to filter it. When you focus on something, the ep explains that it’s like a spotlight and you don’t notice what else is happening.

Everyone remembers the netball video, right? (1min 40 sec video)

Have you seen the TED talk Jill Bolte Taylor gave about her stroke? She’s a neuroanatomist specialising in the brain who had a major stroke one day; in her talk she discusses (though not in great detail) how the brain works, and what happens during a stroke.