I Became a Savant For a Day

This article is from 2003... would be cool to get an update.<p>Here's the news page of the "Centre for the mind" (but it's mostly about media coverage): <a href="http://www.centreforthemind.com/newsmedia/WHATSHOT/index.cfm" rel="nofollow">http://www.centreforthemind.com/newsmedia/WHATSHOT/index.cfm</a><p>And Wikipedia on the technology (with no mention of temporary savantism): <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcranial_magnetic_stimulation" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcranial_magnetic_stimulati...</a>

<i>"You're not going to be damaged," he said. "You're going to be enhanced."</i><p>That sounds just like a pre-supervillain scenario in just about every superhero movie I've seen.

Apparently, a Medtronic MagPro Compact's street price is around $1000* . I might try to find me one.<p>* <a href="https://www.medwow.com/item.php?search_results=&#38;sale_id=525012022&#38;xlang=" rel="nofollow">https://www.medwow.com/item.php?search_results=&#38;sale_id=...</a>

I'm reading On Intelligence by Jeff Hawkins, which is about how the human brain thinks (with the angle of replicating this as artificial intelligence).<p>In brief, the neocortex has layers. Inputs from senses arrive at the lowest layer, and the data is propagated upwards through the layers to the top, where inputs from different senses are combined and - simplifying my already simple understanding massively - decisions are made. At the lowest layer of the hierarchy, if it is a visual input, it could be a fragment of a line. This could be combined with neighboring inputs to be an eye, and with more inputs, even further up the hierarchy, to be the face you're looking at.<p>Importantly, data runs down the hierarchy too. This is your brain making predictions of what to see, hear, feel, etc. Suppose someone says "my hands are cold so I'll put on my dloves" (not a typo). Say this to an English speaker and they will hear "gloves"; their mind has predicted the word "gloves" from context and experience (some Eastern European speakers won't be fooled, since their languages do have the "dl" sound). Or if you're listening to a song, your mind is primed to hear the next note at the right time. If I understand it correctly, cortical columns in some regions basically transmit the signal "song going as expected" - just passing up a summary, not the details. If you hear a wrong note, the prediction fails, and the details get passed up to the next layers instead.<p>It occurs to me that some of the abilities described might be the result of impairing the prediction mechanism. Qualities of autistic people/savants/TMS-enhanced people were mentioned in the article: -Being unable to recognize the same area when subtle details like shadows were altered. -Being able to draw accurately -Being able to count hundreds of matchsticks.<p>As mentioned in other comments, accurate drawing requires us to <i>not</i> use the mental categorization we're so used to. Without the prediction mechanism, maybe the details of the inputs propagate higher in the hierarchy, closer to what we might consider consciousness. Similarly, counting matchsticks might require us not to group a heap of matchsticks into "a heap of matchsticks" but instead still see each individual matchstick.<p>But I Am Not A Neurologist.

This badly needs to go through the research checklist "Warning Signs in Experimental Design and Interpretation" by Peter Norvig (director of research at Google).<p><a href="http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html" rel="nofollow">http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html</a>

"But 'on the machine,' he says, 'you start seeing what's actually there, not what you think is there.'"<p>In the world outside the machine and his experiments, I like how this statement ties in with Zen/meditation/Mihály Csíkszentmihályi's concept of Flow. I think we can all think of times when we've just been totally aware and immersed. But those are few compared to the too-many times when I've been thinking too much, worrying, and not being aware.

Amazing!<p>I've often wondered whether it would be possible to temporarily re-engineer myself into a tool for solving a specific hard problem.<p>I'm just re-reading On Lisp, and I'm struck by the similarity to the bottom-up programming paradigm. You build the language up to your problem, as well as breaking the problem down to your language.<p>This reminds me of the Focused in Vernor Vinge's A Deepness in the Sky. In that case, they were no better than slaves, but one could imagine voluntary focusing. Like the book's protagonist, I was at once horrified by the conditions of the subjects, but thrilled by the prospect of human automation.

For those curious about mescaline (mentioned in the article) and how it supposedly removes mental filters to allow you to see the world "as it is", I recommend Aldus Huxley's Doors of Perception.<p><a href="http://mescaline.com/huxley.htm" rel="nofollow">http://mescaline.com/huxley.htm</a>

Why not do it in reverse order? First drawing with the machine and then without.

I often have instantaneous insights that take minutes (or months) to understand conceptually. Maybe it's a temporary connection to the raw data?

Since a computer based singularity is not arriving, I wonder if a human one might - can you imagine if this got good enough that large numbers of people were using it routinely?<p>*I am aware that that would not meet the typical definition of singularity. I'm referring more to a leap in technology, then technology inventing itself.

"A bird in the hand is worth two in the the bush"<p>I could find the double 'the' at first sight - am I a savant or what?

Don't try this at home.<p><a href="http://transcenmentalism.org/OpenStim/tiki-index.php" rel="nofollow">http://transcenmentalism.org/OpenStim/tiki-index.php</a>

Why didn't he draw 4 different common animals instead of the same one 4 times?

Some of it sounds wishfull thinking and widely exagerated.<p>"I'm not sure I see how TMS can actually alter the way your brain works" Thats a renown scientist apparantly. Has he not read about the experiments that the main scientist has been doing. WHy can he not see how TMS can alter the way our brain works. How can these renowned scientists not believe the work that the times is reporting, whats wrong with it, why is the times not saying anything about the seemingly contradictory reporting of the views of these scientists?

The simple idea that less is more (in terms of so-called brainpower) is as old as the world itself. The cows are holy animals in India because people belive that they are wise. Buddha told that you should cease all your mental activities to gain ability to see the things as they are. It is why Buddhas eyes is half-shut. And every one know that 100% idle is better (allows faster responce) than 100% load. =) Just think that computer is a weak and primitive model of our neourology.

<i>By shutting down certain mental functions -- the capacity to think conceptually, categorically, contextually -- did this impairment allow other mental functions to flourish? Could brain damage, in short, actually make you brilliant?</i><p>isn't cannabis works the same way?! =)