3 funerals and a lost box of medications
-
In the article is states; "Humans also face an upper limit on the size of their brains." How can this be determined? Surely we don't know the upper limit. And it is regularly said we only use 10% of our brains capability. What is to say that we don't start using some of the 90% spare capacity, and while we start to use it, evolution does start giving us bigger heads with larger brains in a few thousand generations time.
Dave Find Me On: Web|Facebook|Twitter|LinkedIn
Folding Stats: Team CodeProject
DaveAuld wrote:
In the article is states; "Humans also face an upper limit on the size of their brains." How can this be determined? Surely we don't know the upper limit.
Well, a human neck will snap if too much load is applied, so there is a limit on brain size.
-
DaveAuld wrote:
In the article is states; "Humans also face an upper limit on the size of their brains." How can this be determined? Surely we don't know the upper limit.
Well, a human neck will snap if too much load is applied, so there is a limit on brain size.
yes, but as the brain enlarged, so would the skull and evolution would more than likely compensate the neck to accommodate this also. And going by some of the size of guys heads out here (commonly referred to as 'Snipers Dreams') the majority of us have a fair amount of catchup to do.
Dave Find Me On: Web|Facebook|Twitter|LinkedIn
Folding Stats: Team CodeProject
-
yes, but as the brain enlarged, so would the skull and evolution would more than likely compensate the neck to accommodate this also. And going by some of the size of guys heads out here (commonly referred to as 'Snipers Dreams') the majority of us have a fair amount of catchup to do.
Dave Find Me On: Web|Facebook|Twitter|LinkedIn
Folding Stats: Team CodeProject
-
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
In the article is states; "Humans also face an upper limit on the size of their brains." How can this be determined? Surely we don't know the upper limit. And it is regularly said we only use 10% of our brains capability. What is to say that we don't start using some of the 90% spare capacity, and while we start to use it, evolution does start giving us bigger heads with larger brains in a few thousand generations time.
Dave Find Me On: Web|Facebook|Twitter|LinkedIn
Folding Stats: Team CodeProject
The actual theory regarding an upper limit to the brain has to do with the number of connections between the neurons: it is believed that size is less important than complexity. There are animals with larger brains, and animals with larger brain-to-body ratios than humans, but no animal comes even remotely close to the average number of connections between neurons. If this theory is correct (and most biologists believe that it is), then adding more neurons to the human brain -- increasing its size, in other words -- would not increase human intelligence: you would have to eliminate existing connections to make room for the new connections. At best, you would maintain the average number of connections; at worst, you end up decreasing the number of connections. The "10% of our brain" is a misinterpretation of science. About 10% of the brain is dedicated to purely cognitive functions: What is the product of 4.1 and 3.5? Why do you prefer Brand X? Tell me about your mother. Don't think of an elephant. The other 90% keeps your heart beating, moves your diaphram to inflate your lungs, allows you to walk upright, processes the constant barrage of sensory input, and so on. You probably do not want to take processing cycles away from any of that core functionality. :rolleyes: Mind you, though, that 10% appears to be far beyond what any other Terran lifeform is able to manage.
-
The actual theory regarding an upper limit to the brain has to do with the number of connections between the neurons: it is believed that size is less important than complexity. There are animals with larger brains, and animals with larger brain-to-body ratios than humans, but no animal comes even remotely close to the average number of connections between neurons. If this theory is correct (and most biologists believe that it is), then adding more neurons to the human brain -- increasing its size, in other words -- would not increase human intelligence: you would have to eliminate existing connections to make room for the new connections. At best, you would maintain the average number of connections; at worst, you end up decreasing the number of connections. The "10% of our brain" is a misinterpretation of science. About 10% of the brain is dedicated to purely cognitive functions: What is the product of 4.1 and 3.5? Why do you prefer Brand X? Tell me about your mother. Don't think of an elephant. The other 90% keeps your heart beating, moves your diaphram to inflate your lungs, allows you to walk upright, processes the constant barrage of sensory input, and so on. You probably do not want to take processing cycles away from any of that core functionality. :rolleyes: Mind you, though, that 10% appears to be far beyond what any other Terran lifeform is able to manage.
Gregory.Gadow wrote:
You probably do not want to take processing cycles away from any of that core functionality
I don't know, there are a few out here that appear to have, and managed without increasing the cognitive part. :)
Dave Find Me On: Web|Facebook|Twitter|LinkedIn
Folding Stats: Team CodeProject
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
Ada?
heheh beat me to it
"... having only that moment finished a vigorous game of Wiff-Waff and eaten a tartiflet." - Henry Minute "...who gives a tinker's cuss?" - Dalek Dave
-
Gregory.Gadow wrote:
You probably do not want to take processing cycles away from any of that core functionality
I don't know, there are a few out here that appear to have, and managed without increasing the cognitive part. :)
Dave Find Me On: Web|Facebook|Twitter|LinkedIn
Folding Stats: Team CodeProject
Management is proof that a swelled head does not equal increased mental capacity. :-D
-
Management is proof that a swelled head does not equal increased mental capacity. :-D
-
The actual theory regarding an upper limit to the brain has to do with the number of connections between the neurons: it is believed that size is less important than complexity. There are animals with larger brains, and animals with larger brain-to-body ratios than humans, but no animal comes even remotely close to the average number of connections between neurons. If this theory is correct (and most biologists believe that it is), then adding more neurons to the human brain -- increasing its size, in other words -- would not increase human intelligence: you would have to eliminate existing connections to make room for the new connections. At best, you would maintain the average number of connections; at worst, you end up decreasing the number of connections. The "10% of our brain" is a misinterpretation of science. About 10% of the brain is dedicated to purely cognitive functions: What is the product of 4.1 and 3.5? Why do you prefer Brand X? Tell me about your mother. Don't think of an elephant. The other 90% keeps your heart beating, moves your diaphram to inflate your lungs, allows you to walk upright, processes the constant barrage of sensory input, and so on. You probably do not want to take processing cycles away from any of that core functionality. :rolleyes: Mind you, though, that 10% appears to be far beyond what any other Terran lifeform is able to manage.
So it sounds like the number of connections per volume in the higher thinking part of the brain is the important part. Though I suspect that an increased brain with the same connection density would have increased cognitive potential. Even if that increased cognition is a better memory.
Somebody in an online forum wrote:
INTJs never really joke. They make a point. The joke is just a gift wrapper.
-
So it sounds like the number of connections per volume in the higher thinking part of the brain is the important part. Though I suspect that an increased brain with the same connection density would have increased cognitive potential. Even if that increased cognition is a better memory.
Somebody in an online forum wrote:
INTJs never really joke. They make a point. The joke is just a gift wrapper.
One of the leading theories of how memory works says that memory is not stored in any one place: it is a function of the connections themselves. Think back on what you had for breakfast. The memory of the taste is stored in the same part of the brain that processes "taste." The memories of sitting down at the table are stored in the parts of the brain that actually manipulated the body to sit down. The memories of conversation are kept in the parts of the brain that process sound, apply meaning to sound, translate meaningful sound into language, and parse language into understanding. There is a kind of daemon that links these different pieces into a holistic scene. Storage limits are managed by the daemon linking in "archetypes"... think object reuse. You actually have one or two memories of sitting down; the daemon links one one of those objects and fills in the scenery around it. You only have a few memories of the taste of bacon; the daemon reuses one of those memories. Deja vu occurs when the daemon anticipates and links too early; related phenomena like presque vu ("almost seen", the sense of "its on the tip of my tongue") and jamais vu (knowing you have seen something before, but finding it unfamiliar) occur when the daemon fails to link the object in a timely manner. REM sleep is when the daemon reorganizes and compiles memories, filtering out redundant memories and replacing them with suitable static objects. Your brain "disconnects" from the body by stopping production of certain neurotransmitters, and the day is "reviewed" and integrated into long-term memory. As you remember walking and looking, the parts of the brain responsible for walking and seeing are active. Dreams are the result of your consciousness not being quite asleep: the job of consciousness is to create order out of chaos, and when faced with a brain in the middle of a compile.... That is why dreams are so strange, yet make sense at the time. Chances are, a larger brain would not do much to improve human mentation, not without a major upgrade to our operating system; adding storage to a system that already has adequate storage is not going to speed up processing.
-
A case of the Ethel calling the Ada a programmer.
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.” I wouldn't let CG touch my Abacus! When you're wrestling a gorilla, you don't stop when you're tired, you stop when the gorilla is.
-
One of the leading theories of how memory works says that memory is not stored in any one place: it is a function of the connections themselves. Think back on what you had for breakfast. The memory of the taste is stored in the same part of the brain that processes "taste." The memories of sitting down at the table are stored in the parts of the brain that actually manipulated the body to sit down. The memories of conversation are kept in the parts of the brain that process sound, apply meaning to sound, translate meaningful sound into language, and parse language into understanding. There is a kind of daemon that links these different pieces into a holistic scene. Storage limits are managed by the daemon linking in "archetypes"... think object reuse. You actually have one or two memories of sitting down; the daemon links one one of those objects and fills in the scenery around it. You only have a few memories of the taste of bacon; the daemon reuses one of those memories. Deja vu occurs when the daemon anticipates and links too early; related phenomena like presque vu ("almost seen", the sense of "its on the tip of my tongue") and jamais vu (knowing you have seen something before, but finding it unfamiliar) occur when the daemon fails to link the object in a timely manner. REM sleep is when the daemon reorganizes and compiles memories, filtering out redundant memories and replacing them with suitable static objects. Your brain "disconnects" from the body by stopping production of certain neurotransmitters, and the day is "reviewed" and integrated into long-term memory. As you remember walking and looking, the parts of the brain responsible for walking and seeing are active. Dreams are the result of your consciousness not being quite asleep: the job of consciousness is to create order out of chaos, and when faced with a brain in the middle of a compile.... That is why dreams are so strange, yet make sense at the time. Chances are, a larger brain would not do much to improve human mentation, not without a major upgrade to our operating system; adding storage to a system that already has adequate storage is not going to speed up processing.
Neat. :thumbsup:
Gregory.Gadow wrote:
mentation
And I learned a new word. :thumbsup:
Somebody in an online forum wrote:
INTJs never really joke. They make a point. The joke is just a gift wrapper.
