Brain Capacity

Factual Questions
1

Is it theoretically possible to know everything?

It’s been said we only utilize about 10% of our brain’s potential but really, the amount of knowledge each individual knows is quite small compared to what s/he doesn’t know. (and that 10% is divied up between basic life functions, memories, info processing etc. so i guess the knowledge portion is far less than 10%)

Is our capacity to learn infinite (assume infinite lifespan)? I don’t mean exposure to but rather a deep seeded understanding of everything. The history, religions, science, languages, etc of all cultures. EVERYTHING. Every bit of knowledge attained by humanity and all the new stuff that humanity will learn as well.

The brain has been likened to a harddrive but that would imply finite capacity.

So I guess that would be it. Does the brain have a finite capacity?

(I think) the accepted neuro mechanism for learning is flexible hardwiring (oxymoron? or am i a moron?). What about the protein hypothesis (new knowledge stored in protein…planaria experiment) (psych 101 years ago). regardless, doesn’t that again imply finite capacity.

(i ask because I was asked what my one wish would be. I wished to know everything. To know what to say and when to say it. With a true understanding of everything, I could effectively negotiate for world peace, know exactly what to do to provide a safe, ethical food source of all the world, to solve all of the world’s maladies. then i would just sit around and act all smarmy :slight_smile: :slight_smile: :wink: :wink:

no, but seriously. If ALL the knowledge of the world was on a server, would I be able to dump it all into my brain and recall it and dissect it at will
thanks all!!

2

I don’t have a cite, but, to the best of my recollection, the 10% figure is the result of an unfortunate misunderstanding.

You see, some time ago (I believe around the 1940s), brain experts had mapped out what approximately 10% of the brain did. They were still working on the rest, but they knew that wasn’t “unused,” since the neurons were obviously firing in a coherent pattern. This, in the way of most scientific ideas, quickly got dumbed down in the popular press to “we only use 10% of our brains,” which is clerly untrue.

BTW, science has advanced enough since then that the brain’s functions are fairly well known, and all parts of the brain are accounted for. So, sorry, no latent superpowers if you can just learn to use the “rest of your brain.”

And, to your actual question, the answer is no. To know everything, you’d have to have knowledge of things in several impossible ways:

a) knowing about parts of the universe too far away for information to have reached us in the time available

b) the complete contents, including the moment-to-moment thoughts, of the brains of every sentient being, which clearly (since you’re asking to know those thoughts with one of those brains) is like trying to put several billion pounds of sugar into a one-pound bag

c) a nearly infinite array of positional data on every particle in the universe

But I might be taking “everything” a bit more literally than you are.

3

Cecil’s column on this subject: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_028.html

4

ypu. i thought so too. That was the exact interpretation of everything I was looking for.

But what then prevents us from learning (time not being a factor) everything (your definition). Is it simply a problem of physical capacity? again, assuming instantaneous access to ALL information (present and past)?

thanks again!!

(that 10% thing was suspect all along :slight_smile:

5

just read the link (thanks perda!)

so i guess it’s physical capacity

6

It’s more than just capacity. It’s also being able to form associations between seemingly totally unrelated pieces of data.

Your ability to learn and comprehend what is going on around you is based on your ability to take in data and interpret it. It’s the same with developing a detailed understanding of a technical concept.

Take medicine as an example. I could teach you all the anatomy of the cardiovascular system, and all the anatomy of the autonomic nervous system. Then I could pose you a question, such as why does your heart rate rise when you exercise.

If you have developed an understanding of why the two systems interact, you won’t develop the physical connections bewteen neurons. And when you are asked a question on another slightly related area, you won’t then have the ability to readily make insights based on exisiting knowledge base.

No person has the ability to be everywhere at once in order to develop those neuronal connections, or be in a postion to provide constant reinforcement and update to each and every link.

The best that you can hope for is to have a detailed understanding of your own speciality, and a sufficient knowledge base of everything else you need to live your life.

7

I dunno, 10% sounds kinda high. I’d say most people don’t use anywhere near 10%.

8

Cosmos by Carl Sagan, pp 277-78

9

also remember that in order to know something, we need neurons to store that knowledge. in oder to know how your own mind operates, you would need to have more neurons than you have. confusing? just try thinking about the guy whose legs were both shorter than the other.

anyway, if you can’t know yourself, how can you know anything else, Peppy?

10

jb_farley:

Nonsense. Knowledge is more than merely data. I’m sure we’re capable of understanding the way the mind works… that doesn’t mean that we ever will, of course…

11

Simply understanding how, in a general way, thebrain works is possible… However, knowing the state of every neuron in it is impossible, at least if we assume that the brain acts as an extremely sophisticated Turing machine.

12

Chronos:

It shouldn’t be impossible to know the brain state simply because it’s an “extremely sophisticated Turing machine”, but you may be right for another reason - if you assume that the mind operates at a quantum level (as is believed by many experts). That pesky Heisenberg raises his ugly head again… perhaps…
However, my point was about knowledge itself. jb said that “in oder to know how your own mind operates, you would need to have more neurons than you have”. I’m saying that operational understanding of the brain doesn’t necessarily require a bitwise storage of the brain state any more than operational understanding of a computer requires a gatewise understanding of every node in a CPU.

13

Knowing ‘everything’ is a state that is explicitly prohibited by the laws of nature. To wit: The Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle prohibits someone from measuring one aspect of a system or particle without disturbing another related aspect of that system or particle. Every time a measurement is made energy is added to the system. That energy disrupts the system in some random, unpredictable way. As a result, there is no such thing as the Newtonian/Platonic ‘isolated observer’ that played such a large role in pre-Quantum Theory science. This has had ramifications in philosophy as well as science. By the way, since when does the brain operate on quantum levels? I always understood, and research with psychotropic drugs has bore this out, that the brain’s actions can be defined as chemical pathways in conjunction with electrical stimuli.

14

Derleth:

The working theory distinguishes between ‘brain’ activity and ‘mind’ activity. Certainly there are basic electro-chemical processes operating in the brain that are associated with various external stimulii and basically keeping everything running. There is considerable evidence that suggests that the electro-chemical processes are NOT the only processes at work when the brain engages in conscious thought. There are structures in the brain that have a large number of microtubules Theory and experimental results suggest that these structures operate on a quantum level as tiny computational elements. Many scientists who study the brain and consciouness believe that these structures may be responsible for the ‘conscious mind’.
Here are a few links that discuss quantum consciousness theory and how microtubules might play a role:

http://www.reed.edu/~rsavage/qbrain.html

http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/qbrain.html

http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v2/psyche-2-21-globus.html

http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/hameroff/royal2.html
If you’re really interested in this kind of stuff, you might want to look for a couple of books by Roger Penrose (“The Emperor’s New Mind” and “Shadows of the Mind”). Fascinating stuff!!!

15

For a little more information on this UL, try Snopes.

Aparrently, what I thought was the “truth” (the 10% is an artifact of an old attempt at mapping the brain) is another varaition on the UL. I feel so dirty.