# Matrix-style instant learning



## Metryq (Dec 13, 2011)

*Scientists say they’re getting closer to Matrix-style instant learning*

I wonder if this is any "closer" than the cloned woolly mammoths?



> But according to research co-author Mitsuo Kawato, the neurofeedback mechanism could just as soon be used for purposes of hypnosis or covert mind control. And that... I'm not so keen on.
> 
> "We have to be careful," he explains, "so that this method is not used in an unethical way."



This is a subject addressed in sci-fi stories _The Multiplex Man_ by James P. Hogan and _Helm_ by Steven Gould... and the movie _Toy Story 3_ when Buzz is switched into Demo mode.


----------



## HareBrain (Dec 13, 2011)

Not sure how well this would work for complex physical movements like kung-fu: isn't that largely a case of "muscle memory"? Growing teens are often clumsy because their brains haven't caught up with their changing physical dimensions. Downloading the know-how direct to the brain wouldn't work very well until the brain's learnt how to use the know-how with the specific body, which might not take much less time than traditional methods.


----------



## Metryq (Dec 13, 2011)

"Muscle memory" is just a catch phrase. Sight is in the brain, not the eyes. And "reflex" actions, like fighting skills, are probably in the brain, and not the extended nervous system, as with flinching away from heat or pain.

Hogan's _The Multiplex Man_ was somewhat detailed about "tailoring" the skills from one brain to another. And the aikido fighting skills in Gould's _Helm_ did not manifest right away. The character had to become physically fit. And as he took more classes, his imprinted skills emerged at a rate far accelerated over conventional training. 

This skill imprinting technique may or may not work. Right now it is a sci-fi possibility, like extra-terrestrials—neither provably impossible, nor yet proven.


----------



## ktabic (Dec 14, 2011)

Metryq said:


> *Scientists say they’re getting closer to Matrix-style instant learning*
> 
> I wonder if this is any "closer" than the cloned woolly mammoths?


You mean these woolly mammoths?


----------



## Metryq (Dec 14, 2011)

ktabic said:


> You mean these woolly mammoths?



I mean the mammoths discussed *here*.


----------



## hopewrites (Dec 15, 2011)

I think matrix learning _is_ unethical. there is more to learning then just the accumulation of knowledge in one's memory banks. even the acquisition of knowledge is not all there is to learning.
where is the wisdom? granted not everyone who acquires lots of knowledge acquires wisdom to go with it, but part of the process of learning is building the wisdom base to use what one learns *wisely*.
as much as I would like to be able to upload what is in my mind to a database for logical dissection and ease of recall, I dont know how I feel about the idea that someone could just info-dump straight into my braincells.

This, however, sounds much more like Professor Hill's Think System from The Music Man.


----------



## PTeppic (Dec 15, 2011)

Metryq said:


> "Muscle memory" is just a catch phrase. Sight is in the brain, not the eyes. And "reflex" actions, like fighting skills, are probably in the brain, and not the extended nervous system, as with flinching away from heat or pain.



I don't believe this is true. Various parts of the body learn repeated actions: the muscles, sinews and other tissues, so that with much practice they can strengthen and perfect the motion. Hence the repetition used in practice of, for example, martial arts.


----------



## Dozmonic (Dec 16, 2011)

From what's said there, it's very early stages to make any such claims. There are biological barriers to the learning, too. Excellence comes from repetition that strengthens the neural signals related to an activity. The activation levels of excitatory and inhibitory neurons adjust over time, the synaptical gap decreases in size, neurons become covered in levels of myelin to improve conductivity and response time. This happens only when those neurons are being used in that way so without drugs to accelerate the rate at which that happens, you're still looking at the tradition 10,000 hours to become world class at something. The difference here is that they don't have to have an active focus on it to do it, if the research is correct.

Another thing mentioned in the article is that they're using functional MRI to activate parts of the brain that've been active while subjects were doing a task. It means you still need to do the basics, it's just the repetition of them that's not quite as required. Learning your scales won't make you a fantastic pianist, but it'll help.

It looks to be a form of visual subliminal learning and reminds me of photoreading, imagestreaming, flash cards and visual accelerated learning of that ilk.


----------



## soulsinging (Dec 18, 2011)

I'm really biting my tongue to not tie this to politics and how this might spell the end for certain strains of political thought, hehe.


----------



## Snowdog (Dec 18, 2011)

hopewrites said:


> I think matrix learning _is_ unethical. there is more to learning then just the accumulation of knowledge in one's memory banks. even the acquisition of knowledge is not all there is to learning.
> where is the wisdom? granted not everyone who acquires lots of knowledge acquires wisdom to go with it, but part of the process of learning is building the wisdom base to use what one learns *wisely*.
> as much as I would like to be able to upload what is in my mind to a database for logical dissection and ease of recall, I dont know how I feel about the idea that someone could just info-dump straight into my braincells.
> 
> This, however, sounds much more like Professor Hill's Think System from The Music Man.



What's the difference between this sort of learning and teachers pounding facts into your brain by rote, in order to pass exams? Understanding and wisdom generally comes (if it ever does) from experience, not actual learning, as is obvious whenever you hear any young person talking about almost anything, however bright they may be. They know a lot but understand little. (Of course there are exceptions).

I don't think it's unethical. If it works and is used properly, it's just another useful tool.


----------



## hopewrites (Dec 19, 2011)

I can sing french by rote, but I dont know how to speak it. Is that what your referring to when you say learning facts by rote?
Maybe its changed in the last decade or maybe I just had different teachers then everyone else, or maybe the fact that I'm dyslexic and had to learn how to learn around the system that everyone else was just following like docile sheep that made it different for me. but when I was in English or History or Math class I never learned "just the facts" so I could regurgitate them onto the test paper. I had to know why I was learning something, find probable application to make it stick, or it wouldnt. When other students would ask "why do we have to learn this!? we're never going to use it" the teachers tiredly answered "you never know" or "yes you will" or "..." and I always felt bad for those kids because they didnt get it. They couldnt see that learning about the past prepares us for the future. Not because "history repeats itself" or "to prevent these dire happenings from happening" but because we need to be able to recognize the long range effect of different thought processes.
What were the people thinking and feeling that led them to a revolution. What were the people thinking and feeling that led them to push the boundaries of the known world? The overlying circumstances may change. There are no feudal lords demanding I grow X wheat for their store houses with the social permission to rape me at will, but that doesnt mean that the feelings of oppression and dismission are not present in my lifetime. Just because there is no Aristocratic class in modern America doesnt mean there arent people who hold all the power and all the money who dont know or care to know what really is going on at the lowest level of the social ladder they are standing on. Just because the current generation with entitlement issues is comes from a different socioeconomic background from past generations with the same issues doesnt mean they wont abuse who they can without thinking.

No, I didnt learn names and dates when I was in school. I couldnt tell you who ruled what or even where most countries are. I couldnt tell you when Machiavelli lived or who his contemporaries were.
What I can tell you is that change, real change only comes from emotional upheaval. That if the masses can be divided, placated, kept ignorant and happy that they wont know or care to know what is happening to the world around them. That's what I learned from my history classes.

my point is that knowing that doesnt do me any good unless I have the wisdom to understand what it means. and because of the way I learned, by reading the same story time and again but with different characters in different settings I was able to glean this one little truth. that's just learning. that's not wisdom.
I dont count the regurgitation of names and dates, of reciting Shakespeare and times tables as learning. that's conditioned response. and mental conditioned responses are dangerous tools of ignorance, hate, and shame.


----------



## soulsinging (Dec 19, 2011)

hopewrites said:


> I can sing french by rote, but I dont know how to speak it. Is that what your referring to when you say learning facts by rote?
> Maybe its changed in the last decade or maybe I just had different teachers then everyone else, or maybe the fact that I'm dyslexic and had to learn how to learn around the system that everyone else was just following like docile sheep that made it different for me. but when I was in English or History or Math class I never learned "just the facts" so I could regurgitate them onto the test paper. I had to know why I was learning something, find probable application to make it stick, or it wouldnt. When other students would ask "why do we have to learn this!? we're never going to use it" the teachers tiredly answered "you never know" or "yes you will" or "..." and I always felt bad for those kids because they didnt get it. They couldnt see that learning about the past prepares us for the future. Not because "history repeats itself" or "to prevent these dire happenings from happening" but because we need to be able to recognize the long range effect of different thought processes.
> What were the people thinking and feeling that led them to a revolution. What were the people thinking and feeling that led them to push the boundaries of the known world? The overlying circumstances may change. There are no feudal lords demanding I grow X wheat for their store houses with the social permission to rape me at will, but that doesnt mean that the feelings of oppression and dismission are not present in my lifetime. Just because there is no Aristocratic class in modern America doesnt mean there arent people who hold all the power and all the money who dont know or care to know what really is going on at the lowest level of the social ladder they are standing on. Just because the current generation with entitlement issues is comes from a different socioeconomic background from past generations with the same issues doesnt mean they wont abuse who they can without thinking.
> 
> ...



None of that is taught in US schools. Maybe if we had a means to just download the test facts needed to meet No Child Left Behind standardized test requirements for federal funding, we could actually spend time in class working on the very issues you rightly identify as being the truly important part of an education?

You identify what education should be. Sadly, that is not at all what it is anymore.


----------



## hopewrites (Dec 19, 2011)

I think that largely depends on the student. It is impossible (though this article would wish to prove otherwise) to teach someone something they do not wish to learn.
I offer for example my ability (or lack there of) to cook. There is no reason beyond my assertion that "I cant cook" for me to not be able to do it, I bake with joy and delight that can be tasted in my sumptuous creations, I excel at following directions. I have all the necessary strength and hand-eye coordination to stir, whisk, flip, roll, combine, measure, pore, slice, dice, massage, pound, and kneed. 
Yet put me in a kitchen and ask for dinner and I panic. why? because I cant cook.
friends and family have walked me through countless "simple" dishes which I can replicate perfectly so long as I have someone to affirm to me that I am "doing it right" on whom I can blame the success of the meal. I once made restraint quality spaghetti over the phone (he was on the phone directing me to cut this and grind that, to add a pinch of this and so on) 
My point is that so long as I continue in my stubborn assertion that "I cant cook" I will not retain any of the skills my friends and family patently and lovingly try to impart to me. Until I want to learn, no one can teach me.

I like philosophy and psychology so I am always trying to learn those things. I dont know why I dont want to learn how to cook, until I do know I will have a very hard time changing my mind.


----------



## mosaix (Dec 19, 2011)

Snowdog said:


> What's the difference between this sort of learning and teachers pounding facts into your brain by rote, in order to pass exams? Understanding and wisdom generally comes (if it ever does) from experience, not actual learning, as is obvious whenever you hear any young person talking about almost anything, however bright they may be. They know a lot but understand little. (Of course there are exceptions).
> 
> I don't think it's unethical. If it works and is used properly, it's just another useful tool.



Good post, Snowdog.

In the arena of computer programming it's generally accepted that you need about 10,000 hours of being a programmer before you're proficient at it. That's about five years of writing programs. The courses take about three weeks.

I well remember going on my first course aged about 19 and being incredibly proud of writing working programs. It was only in my mid-twenties that I suddenly realised that I was writing programs quickly, that they worked first time with minimal testing, that they were well documented, easy to understand, easy to maintain and easy and intuative to use. All that comes with experience - lots of it.


----------



## Snowdog (Dec 20, 2011)

mosaix said:


> It was only in my mid-twenties that I suddenly realised that I was writing programs quickly, that they worked first time with minimal testing, that they were well documented, easy to understand, easy to maintain and easy and intuative to use. All that comes with experience - lots of it.



And aptitude, an inherent natural abilty. I was 'invited' by my employer to go on a computing course and become a programmer (COBOL, shows how old I am) and I did it for about 3 years. But I was average at best, because, while I could do it, I wasn't really _gifted. _Hardly any of us were, but we had some who were, and the difference was obvious. 

I can only speak about the English education system and I think it has changed a lot in the last 15-20 years. The curriculum is fuller than ever and everyone is encouraged to aim for university, whether they are suited to it or not. But in order to get everyone to pass, for social and political reasons, the focus is on cramming (as well as making the exams easier). I don't think there is any time or desire to treat any subject with any depth.

However, going back to my first point, I'm not sure most kids are capable of any real understanding at that age, and they probably weren't in my day either.


----------



## Metryq (Dec 20, 2011)

Suppose this technology were used to determine an individual's aptitude for a certain field of study, rather than for imprinting "knowledge." Asimov's story "Profession" is just one treatment of this concept.

James P. Hogan's book _The Genesis Machine_ featured a neural interactive computer called a BIAC. A user could use the machine to run complex calculations by just thinking about them, rather than inputting complex formulae by hand. Thus, theoretical and engineering work could be done in a much more fluid and "natural" way. Every operator had to be taught how to use a BIAC and record a "preference" file. After that, it was like riding a bike.

What other possibilities might there be?


----------



## TL Rese (Dec 20, 2011)

Metryq said:


> James P. Hogan's book _The Genesis Machine_ featured a neural interactive computer called a BIAC. A user could use the machine to run complex calculations by just thinking about them, rather than inputting complex formulae by hand. Thus, theoretical and engineering work could be done in a much more fluid and "natural" way. Every operator had to be taught how to use a BIAC and record a "preference" file. After that, it was like riding a bike.


 
this reminds me of something i saw on a stephen hawkings documentary - a brain-computer interface.  the guy could move his wheelchair just by thinking about it.  pretty incredible.

as for the matrix-style learning, in reality, learning is a very complex thing.  what about natural aptitude, which is hard-wired into your genetics?  you can't override your genes w/ a 30sec download.  i'm thinking specifically about art/creativity - something computers as we know them can't really do, and it's something that we don't even fully understand.  for example, i highly doubt i'll be able to download an app into my brain that will allow me to then compose music like beethoven, or sing like pavarotti, or draw like michelangelo - i simply don't have the genetic ability to do those things the way these masters can.  the weird thing about art is that no two people can create the exact same art piece, unless one is merely copying the other.  maybe there'll be some brain-app that could teach me to reproduce a da vinci painting like a photocopier, but to actually be a genius in the way that he was?  most likely not.


----------



## hopewrites (Dec 20, 2011)

as I said in my first post, It is much more like Professor Hill's Think System from The Music Man. He described it to his critic as akin to whistling "no one has to teach you how to use your lips when you whistle" He asked his students to just think the songs and they would be able to play them.
That is how I read it. They would just play something that activated your brain in a certain way and you would be able to do it. "Just think you can, and you can" this is an interesting concept in and of itself because it is partly true, 

"think you cant, and you never will. Think you can, and the possibility lies before you"


----------



## RJM Corbet (Dec 28, 2011)

I've just downloaded a 30 day trial version on QuarkXpress and I'm sitting down trying to learn how to use it, it's a pretty formidable programme; oh, how I would love to be able to plug in some electrodes overnight, and wake up in the morning and have it down, waxed, ready and wrapped ... phew! What a thought! Instant learning would be beautiful, man ...


----------



## Hilarious Joke (Dec 29, 2011)

> Suppose this technology were used to determine an individual's aptitude for a certain field of study, rather than for imprinting "knowledge." Asimov's story "Profession" is just one treatment of this concept.


 
I was interested in this and so read the story online just then. It was a ripper! Isaac Asimov really is a great writer with brilliant concepts. Thanks Metryq for putting me onto it


----------



## Metryq (Dec 29, 2011)

RJM Corbet said:


> I've just downloaded a 30 day trial version on QuarkXpress and I'm sitting down trying to learn how to use it, it's a pretty formidable programme; oh, how I would love to be able to plug in some electrodes overnight, and wake up in the morning and have it down, waxed, ready and wrapped



Or you could get Adobe InDesign and dispense with the 'trodes.


----------

