A hunger for analysis and play(ing), after cramming data into one's memory

After having speed-read a book of project management, my mind starves for any analytical task to do. Not necessarily of the stuff just read/learnt but of anything.

Might it be possible that being confronted with a bold set of news results in a bold number of newly available neurons -- that kind-of want/need to bee stored somewhere, get wired in somewhere/any better in case they' are already wired in, somewhat? Does that task urge, since it might feel unpleasant otherwise?

— Indeed, the motivation behind that hunger for analysis, in fact, might be to give (any) thing a trial, to experiment.

      
Updates: none so far

questions regarding familiarity, recognition, creation of new neurons, their offshoot, self, and the brain

Saturday morning I awoke when I was scratching my head. I noticed the sound it made. I thought of something like -- Why does it make that sound it makes? That well known sound. Then I started to wonder -- which made me woke finally. Thinking is always a good setting [for me] to get ripped out of the sweetest (and the most horrible dreams), so this one was.

So, fine, scratching my head makes a sound. A familiar sound. One I know really good. Do I? That sound is so familiar I most often not even notice. -- That was what I noticed next: Why didn't I notice it so far? How many times may I have scratched my head up to now? And only now I ask that question. Curious.

Might it be that as soon as we are familiar to a situation/thing we stop asking further questions on that matter? Might this be the cause for why children [apparently] ask about everything? Is their familiarity [with the world] so sparse that recognition can not kick in? Or might it be, recognition itself results in too vague results [for the children]: i.e. results in 1..many nodes which get stimulated to a similar degree, thus automatic ("intuitive") recognizing, that results in a single most probable [represented] item recognized, cannot take place? Therefore, the child has to find that single most probable item consciously, actively? They support recognition by asking grown-ups? And by that support they make a distinct edges become weighted as more important? [I assume, that equals <learning>. The body is able to move a lid or a leg by a pulse of a nerve -- why not move or even grow a neuron's dendrite or axon by basic will?]

If the child, by the approach to weight single edges more important, does not achieve the wanted result, maybe because, after a while, all the edges get weighted equally again [hence the confusion gets as strong as when it was the time before weighting at all], what happens then? Does the child decide -- read: does the child decide, as well as: does the child decide -- one or more new neurons to create?

Or gets this decision made by "the brain"? Or does it cause the creation of new nerve cells without any kind of decision-making, i.e. automatically? Or is it just any single nerve cell which initiates cell division? Or is it not even that single neuron which 'initiates' cell division but plainly begins to divide itself, caused by any external conditions, e.g. biological or chemical ones, which in turn might get caused because there is an obviously needed nerve cell not in place? Might these biological or chemical conditions get caused because neighbouring cells feel some stress and excrete some hormones?

Or might be the reason for new neurons to be created be caused by any neuro biological condition, though? Maybe because nerve cells divide when any of their offshoots -- axons, dendrites -- grew a "too large" tree//braid//knop? And, this rank growth divides itself from the remainder of the very nerve cell?

Or might it be that at some time there's no place left over on the main body of a neuron where any other neurons immediately can dock to, hence dendrites get started to grow? Or the docking nerve cells begin to grow axons, since these might fit between all the other dockers? Or is it that way, the nerve cell gets divided when there's no place left over on the core body of it?
 

PS.: I doubt there is any bird's view instance which decides whether or not to set up any new edge or cell (node). In other words, I doubt "the brain" decides that..anything at all what takes place within the brain itself//brain body, i.e. I doubt there is any other instance in brain but 'self' that makes any decisions regarding brain itself.

      
Updates: none so far

Main thesis of MOM

Main thesis of MOM is, that items get represented in mind -- and can be represented in terms of data -- by features of these very items.

Where to stop going deeper and deeper into details

First objection against this assertion often is, that that inevitably would necessitate a highhanded decision, at what level of granularity to stop going to even more granularity: If a dog's features area head, a neck, a tail, a torso, and four legs, then its head's features are at least, that it haves two eyes, two ears, a mouth, a nose; the features of the mouth at least are: some teeth, a tongue, spittle etc. The teeth' features are enamel, root, ... and so on. So, where to stop going into more and more and more detail? -- But if an external mind has to make that decision where to make this stop, the approach has to be wrong, since there is no external mind enjoining human being's minds where to stop.

Furthermore, if such a decision is performed, i.e. if there is a stop of going more and more into details, then the representation cannot be complete. Thus, the represented entity does not match the real example. If so, the representation has to be treated to be invalid. -- On the other hand, if there is no stop, i.e. details barrier, the representation might have has to be as sophisticated as reality/the universe itself. In other words: It is impossible to represent things following this approach, since noone has the resources to represent the universe as a whole.


True. But on the other hand, everyone knows that humans tend to be fallible and by first hand experience most people also know that there is often one thing or another that they didn't know yet. That humans are able to learn was treated to be something special for a long spell. Additionally, most people made the experience, that children which grew up with small dogs in their neighbourhood confuse a cat with the yet known dogs, when they first experience a cat: They call the cat by dogs' common nick name ("Wau-Wau" in Germany).

Therefore I assume, the representation of an item in the first place consists of only as many details as necessary to differenciate the item from another one. A dog from a human. But, since not ever experienced, not from a cat. When experienced, more features get added to also differenciate the cat from the dog. That is: I assume, that in fact there is a details barrier, but I do not assume that it is given highanded by an external mind. Instead, I assume the details barrier is constituted by the attempt of resources saving: Every represented feature might cause a cost of resources, so any unnecessarily represented feature would cause unnecessary cost of resources. Therefore only necessary features would be stored, resulting in the details barrier.

This rises another question: Is it enough to store not all the features of an item but only the necessary ones? -- I assume: Yes, it is, since reality brings a backup: It even might be enough to represent only features an item has without to store, how these features are ordered -- if you treat a dog as head, neck, tail, torso, four legs, can bark, reality ensures that there is not a dog that has its legs and tail attached to its head and the neck and torso to the tail. So, for first this unordered composition approach suffices. Deeper insight into the Model of Meaning offers ways to represent structure as well.<<

---

Updates: 20070624: Tagged the posting. Updated the posting style (layout) to my current style, such as using blockquotes when appropriate, more precise word picks, better grammar.