I knew someone with such a memory. During my study, once in a while I studied together with a girl. You only had to show her a page for a small time and she could tell you what's on it. — Haglund
All of your life is engraved in your brain. — Haglund
So you have good peripheral vision — universeness
Does that include your time asleep? — universeness
So what? It's understanding that counts. Not if you can into detail remember. What you put into a computer's memory is just a static view from a certain angle. — Haglund
As detailed as you see it. — Haglund
I have met similar people. How big was the page, how much writing was on it? etc. — universeness
Each observer reports a different emphasis for the exact same visual scene. — universeness
No. Dreams are not remembered easily. They are just replays of memories, fantasies, etc. Even gods talking to you... Sometimes though you remember every night you dream. Sometimes no at all. Luckily maybe.. — Haglund
So do you now withdraw your suggestion that 'all of your life is engraved on your brain?' — universeness
And a computer chip? — Haglund
Comparing how an electronic memory chip stores data and how a human brain stores memories is a trivial comparison. We know all about the former and very little about the latter. — universeness
The point is, I didn't see it consciously — Haglund
Such a comparison is of little value to future musings regarding transhumanism. — universeness
But your sensor system did, it just took a while for your processors to confirm the data input. — universeness
Which makes the comparison very non-trivial. In assigning a number to brain capacity, the usual definitions of information are used. But you can't use that as the brain memory functions differently. How did Wiki got that number of a pentabyte (bit) information? By counting static units. — Haglund
Exactly. So the fact that computer memory exceeds an artificial number of brain capacity is useless — Haglund
Yes, but it's still all computer generators have. All computing is done with 0 and 1. Even quantum computing. And whatever it's based on it stays computing by program, which ain't going on in the brain. Even not when you think up a program. — Haglund
The guestimate is nonsense. I can give you the Bekenstein fir all computers. But as said, it's static.No because it provides a current guesstimated answer to the trivial question 'can the memory capacity of a computer equal that of a human brain?' that people will ask no matter how trivial you say it currently is. — universeness
It's a far superior guestimated response to a difficult question compared to:
Difficult question: What is the origin story of the universe?
Guestimated answer: Gods — universeness
Proteins are not the only candidates.
Consider a time when elements of electronic/quantum/biological computing are merged with genetic engineering. Today's computing science is an amoeba in comparison. — universeness
Consider a time when elements of electronic/quantum/biological computing are merged with genetic engineering. Today's computing science is an amoeba in comparison. — universeness
Exactly. So the fact that computer memory exceeds an artificial number of brain capacity is useless
— Haglund
No because it provides a current guesstimated answer to the trivial question 'can the memory capacity of a computer equal that of a human brain?' that people will ask no matter how trivial you say it currently is. — universeness
Biological computing is doing leading-edge research on being able to identify two or more states which happen within proteins that are stable and reliable enough to represent data states. If they find them, then the biological computer can begin to have traction. Proteins are not the only candidates. — universeness
It has nothing to do possible or impossible. You're still not getting the point. To this day, what have been made possible by science have always been grounded in material reality. The DNA structure was once unimaginable. But now we do have the structure. But only because it is grounded in physicality.My point is that what was once considered absolutely impossible, is emerging in today's world. Across the board, this is true. So while we may not be able to conceptualize (or even agree on) the potential ability for computers to capture, hold, move and evolve human minds right now, the future looks bright for these kinds of technologies. — Bret Bernhoft
How can it be useful if a brain memory is not based on static information as in the static maximum information content in a volume of space, the maximum content being the number of planckian areas on that surface? That number holds for memory chips but not for brains — Haglund
I'm not disputing the wonderful new developments in computing. It's the idea that by computing consciousness can be created that's a fantasy. — Haglund
So while we may not be able to conceptualize (or even agree on) the potential ability for computers to capture, hold, move and evolve human minds right now, the future looks bright for these kinds of technologies.
This is especially true of transhuman technologies, which include whole brain emulation; as well as other high tech goals, such as super-longevity, super-wellness and super-intelligence. These innovations are the tools for our human transcendence. — Bret Bernhoft
You're still not getting the point. To this day, what have been made possible by science have always been grounded in material reality. The DNA structure was once unimaginable. But now we do have the structure. But only because it is grounded in physicality. — L'éléphant
You just repackage the same points again and again. The brain contains static data at any time instant. static just means unchanged (yet). Based on that you can estimate brain capacity at 2.5 petabytes. — universeness
Creating a new consciousness or self-aware android is not fantasy as it is projected from real empirical evidence, unlike your polytheism. — universeness
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.