most dense object?

[On Radioactive Waves]

procop: I wouldn't resort to name calling if you would have responded to my comments on your theory. I asked, specificly about your concept of information density in the brain, and how it relates to information density of anything else. However since you are so dense yourself, and only respond to name calling, I had to point out what an idiot you are.


Our brains do not work like DVD's!!!!

 

[ProCop]

ren Radioactive Waves

procop: I wouldn't resort to name calling if you would have responded to my comments on your theory. I asked, specificly about your concept of information density in the brain, and how it relates to information density of anything else. However since you are so dense yourself, and only respond to name calling, I had to point out what an idiot you are.

OK. I am accepting your unwillingness to compromise and I have the following proposition:

The brain is the densest matter ever. It's density equals and surpasses the density of the contracted universe. The brain in this proposal is an inversion of the universe. (e.g. imagine you are standing alone in the universe only in your nightgown. You are in the nightgown, the universe is outside. Now invert it. (The universe comes into the nightgown and you are outside of the nightgown)). Hmmm. can't be done, too difficult...But not with the brain. The brain is an element in the universe but it can be inverted so that the universe is an element in the brain. (Happens on daily basis.) Since the universe is an element in the brain (in a sort of "contracted" form) the brain which contains the contracted universe + your mental info is actually denser than the contracted universe from my previous entry.

This, I hope, is a definitive proof of my thesis. (This thesis is well built with examples etc. I hope you are satisfied now.)

 

[chroot]

Re: ren Radioactive Waves

Originally posted by ProCop
The brain is the densest matter ever.

The brain has a density about the same as water -- on the order of about 1 gram per cubic centimeter.

- Warren

 

[ProCop]

Re:chroot

The brain has a density about the same as water -- on the order of about 1 gram per cubic centimeter

Sorry you have provided a not valid argument: brain contains water, water does not contain brain. Brain (mind) is the fifth dimension, its containment capacity is endless. (I am affraid that you do not posses a night gown and therefore you skipped my previous argument : the brain is an element in the universe and the universe is an element in the brain- they equal.) You artificially limit density to the touchable mass. Please reread my <a href=http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10209>DvD theory</a>. Do not let your knowledge to constrain your thinking.

 

[Nasor]

Well, I think it's pretty clear what the problem is here. ProCop is using definitions of mass and density that are different from the definitions used by the rest of the world.

Here's something to consider on the brain vs. DVD argument: A 4 GB DVD can store a sequence of four billion letters. Do you know anyone who could memorize a random string of four billion characters?

 

[ProCop]

RE:Nasor

Here's something to consider on the brain vs. DVD argument: A 4 GB DVD can store a sequence of four billion letters. Do you know anyone who could memorize a random string of four billion characters?

How do you come (suddenly) to a random string? Oh, you needed that to make it for the brain difficult. The DvD can "memorize" ordered strings but brain must do the same with random strings. Shame on you! The brain can memorize/produce endlessly more ordered string than DvD.

 

[chroot]

Re: RE:Nasor

Originally posted by ProCop
How do you come (suddenly) to a random string? Oh, you needed that to make it for the brain difficult. The DvD can "memorize" ordered strings but brain must do the same with random strings. Shame on you! The brain can memorize/produce endlessly more ordered string than DvD.

Shame on him? The DVD can store 4 billion letters, of any composition you like -- random or structured. What Nasor really meant was "arbitrary," not necessarily random. Sure, the brain can memorize the sequence (1, 2, 3... 4,000,000,000) by memorizing only the pattern. The same pattern would only need two bytes to express on a DVD. This is not the point.

I'm sorry dude, but you have a very inconsistent and ad hoc view of the world -- you define terms to mean whatever you want them to mean, and then make it our business to figure out the meanings. This annoys me, and many other people. You don't thoroughly analyze your own position, or critically consider your own opinions.

There is simply no way that you can demonstrate that the brain is able to store an arbitrary string of four billion letters. No neurologist or psychologist would say that the brain is able to store anywhere close to four gigabytes of information. In fact, no one else in the world believes what you believe, because there simply is no kind of evidence for the belief. Do you really think that you alone understand the truth, and everyone else in the entire world is wrong?

No, the brain's amazing ability is not information storage; it's the ability of the brain to do so much work with so few bits and pieces of hard information.

The more and more I interact with you, the more and more convinced I am that you maintain your position only because you refuse to admit that perhaps you didn't think about something thoroughly. When backed into a corner, you simply become less and less rigorous, and just wave your hands faster and faster. I'm almost ready to just put you on my ignore list. At first you were humorously stupid -- now you're just annoyingly stupid.

- Warren

 

[mouse]

First of all, i am a complete newbee and probably i am breaking some rules with this post and feel free to flame me for not investigating the complete thread (which i didn't).

As for the information density of the brain, i agree with the point that the main ability of the brain is to make (usually highely inaccurate) conclusions based on little information. I also agree on the point that the human memory is not concrete at all. It's something extra-ordinary fuzzy and highely prone to influence afterwards (e.g. "ohh, in the old days everything was better!").

Yet, taking that into consideration, i can not help but thinking that the mind does store a lot of information (without entering the discussion whether or not it is the most dense object... i would say arguing for or against it, is an interesting waiste of time, but not necessarily my hobby). E.g. television shows seen only once a decade ago, i can still remember as beeing seen. A song that passed by unnoticed on the radio, five years later can still induce a deja vu. Now, of course, i do not remember the whole show or the whole song. And what i remember is only the sensation of heaving it seen or heard before. But clearly, by recognizing it some reference needed to be stored somewhere. And this seems to be going on a lot with: voices, faces, sounds, images. Seems that storing information in an inaccurate, not complete manner is something the brain does very well.

Best regards

 

[susan]

mouse!

Mouse!
I like that username!

 

[ProCop]

RE:Mouse

Yet, taking that into consideration, i can not help but thinking that the mind does store a lot of information (without entering the discussion whether or not it is the most dense object... i would say arguing for or against it, is an interesting waiste of time, but not necessarily my hobby). E.g. television shows seen only once a decade ago, i can still remember as beeing seen. A song that passed by unnoticed on the radio, five years later can still induce a deja vu. Now, of course, i do not remember the whole show or the whole song. And what i remember is only the sensation of heaving it seen or heard before. But clearly, by recognizing it some reference needed to be stored somewhere. And this seems to be going on a lot with: voices, faces, sounds, images. Seems that storing information in an inaccurate, not complete manner is something the brain does very well.

I do not think that we (the humans) have the full control of our memory. But as you suggest we remember more than we think we remember. It has to do with voluntary and unvoluntary memory. (cq Marcel Proust The Rememberance of the Thigs Lost - in this book eating a cake opens suddenly a whole world which lyed forgotten in unvoluntary memory (we cannot recall that world but some trigger events can recall it with blindenning vividity)) Therefore it is wel possible that we remember a random string not knowing that we remember it. Then at one moment (eg. life threatenning situation we suddenly may be able to recall the string). I know that stating this as a possibility is highly speculative, but oposing it is highly speculative as wel.

 

[ProCop]

RE: chroot

There is simply no way that you can demonstrate that the brain is able to store an arbitrary string of four billion letters. No neurologist or psychologist would say that the brain is able to store anywhere close to four gigabytes of information. In fact, no one else in the world believes what you believe, because there simply is no kind of evidence for the belief. Do you really think that you alone understand the truth, and everyone else in the entire world is wrong?

These are really third rate arguments:

1/ You do not know what any neurologist or psychologist thinks about the brain capacity. (There are to many of them to have a uniform opinion)

2/ You do not know what enybody else believes or thinks about anything (the closest you can come to what they believe/think is to lisen to what they say about what they believe/think which doesn't necesarily mean that they really believe/think that).

3/ I do not really see you and On radioctive waves as the representants of the rest of the world. Were it so it wouldn't be the first instance of the world being wrong. It is just an empty statement and it is extremely polite of me to answer it.

The more and more I interact with you, the more and more convinced I am that you maintain your position only because you refuse to admit that perhaps you didn't think about something thoroughly. When backed into a corner, you simply become less and less rigorous, and just wave your hands faster and faster. I'm almost ready to just put you on my ignore list. At first you were humorously stupid -- now you're just annoyingly stupid.

It is possible to create you own virtual world (or it wil become possible soon). You can then filter your "internet" paper/world so that only pleasant and positive things will appear in it. Laughing babies, happy marriages, great discoveries and economic boom. Other aspects of the world wil then be filtered out: catastophes, deaths, diseases, divorces, failing of science, crash... This "new brave world" is or will be soon at your doorstep. You are well equipt to enter it...Many, many happy babies on your screen from now on...wow --- just on a push of a button, will you be able to resist that?

 

[On Radioactive Waves]

procop:

all I've been trying to point out here the whole time is that you're making some pretty difficult to back up theories. I've yet to see you provide a shred of evidence to support your views



me:

Now i will propose a question to you. How is the brain anymore information dense than any other peice of matter?

Here was the first time I asked you to give some support to your lucrative claim.

here is you handwaving

You are confusing logical operators with entities: an orange is an entity; "not" is a logical operator; thus ORANGE is NOT in your hand....does not really mean that "infinity of other things" is not in your hand ...

Nice try, but you continuously avoided responding to the question.

When backed into a corner, you simply become less and less rigorous, and just wave your hands faster and faster.

ha ha

 

[ProCop]

RE: On Radioactive Waves

Lessons on academic discussion:

lesson 1.
A: human brains is densetst of all all time.
B: no it is not true. CG Jung proposed that the brain may be a sort of a receiver and sender and that the info/memory is not in the brain but elsewhere.
A: Hmm, looks not probable to me but I wil consider it...
B: it sure limits the validity of your statement ...
A: Ok I agree that it is a possibility that the brain doesn't contain the memories, but if it does it is very dense...

lesson 2
A: human brains is densest of all all time.
B: nope, mouse's brain is much smaller so it is more dense than the human brain.
A:bull****, the mouse registers less than humans, lets say that proximatelly a person sees so many square meters of pictures during his/hers life (lifespan/volume of the brain/total of meters seen compared, quantifiable...)
etc.

Lesson 3
(will hopefully provided by On Radioactive Waves in his further entries)

 

[chroot]

Re: RE: chroot

Originally posted by ProCop
world (or it wil become possible soon). You can then filter your "internet" paper/world so that only pleasant and positive things will appear in it. Laughing babies, happy marriages, great discoveries and economic boom. Other aspects of the world wil then be filtered out: catastophes, deaths, diseases, divorces, failing of science, crash... This "new brave world" is or will be soon at your doorstep. You are well equipt to enter it...Many, many happy babies on your screen from now on...wow --- just on a push of a button, will you be able to resist that?

What?? Yeah, I'm really done with this entire discussion -- it's so pointless it pains me.

I will leave you with Step 7 of my Crackpot System:

7) Make up at least a dozen new words. Even better, reuse the same words scientists use, but give them new, entirely different, meanings. Be careful not to give them precise definitions, though; leave a little wiggle room. Using your new lexicon, you can escape the barrage of criticism you'll receive later by revealing "your" definitions piecemeal. This bait-and-switch tactic soon wears out any would-be critics; when they give up on you, pat yourself on the back for having created an impregnable fortress of a theory.

Perhaps you can see how a bit of this is going on, ProCop.

- Warren

 

[ProCop]

Re:chroot

Perhaps you can see how a bit of this is going on, ProCop.

I see. Let me point out that there is only a very thin wall between very stupid ideas and very bright ones. Unfortunately, the way to knowledge/wisdom passes through both rooms. It pains me to say, chroot, that you have a long way to go. But I am, generally, an optimist. You may change your mind.

 

[chroot]

Re: Re:chroot

Originally posted by ProCop
It pains me to say, chroot, that you have a long way to go. But I am, generally, an optimist. You may change your mind.

Worst response ever.

Who do you think you're kidding, fuckwit?

- Warren

 

[ProCop]

RE:chroot

Worst response ever.

Who do you think you're kidding, fuckwit?

Oh, you have changed your mind already. I have underestimated you. You are certainly no slow learner!

 

[Nasor]

Re: Re: RE:Nasor

Originally posted by chroot
The DVD can store 4 billion letters, of any composition you like -- random or structured. What Nasor really meant was "arbitrary," not necessarily random. Sure, the brain can memorize the sequence (1, 2, 3... 4,000,000,000) by memorizing only the pattern.

Being able to count from one to four billion isn't the same as memorizing all the numbers from one to foyr billion. Counting in order is just using an algorithm to determine what number will come next; you don't have to memorize that the number after 55555 will be 55556, you just take 55555 and perform an operation on it, then see what the result is. It would take you a great deal of storage space to store a sequence of billions of digits in memory, but only a very small amount of space to store a program that would count by integers. I'm not sure if that's what you were saying or not.

Of course I suppose you could always argue that a counting algorithm is merely a very efficient form of compression that allows you to store billions of numbers very efficiently - but then again, the informational entropy of a sequence of ordered numbers will always be very low.

But in any case, it still doesn't affect my point that a DVD can store any sequence of 4 billion letters and the human brain can't.

I was sticking with letters instead of numbers because there is a simple 1 letter = 1 byte correspondence when storing letters on a computer. Figuring out the storage space for numbers is tricky, since some numbers take more space to store than others.

 

[ProCop]

RE:Nasor/chroot

Being able to count from one to four billion isn't the same as memorizing all the numbers from one to foyr billion. Counting in order is just using an algorithm to determine what number will come next; you don't have to memorize that the number after 55555 will be 55556, you just take 55555 and perform an operation on it, then see what the result is.

I am afraid you both build your opinion on the wrong basis. You see the memory as a computing process, where in a memory register the number 5555555 wil be stored as abstract digits.

I propose that this nummer and most of other info is "photographed" and stored as a picture in the memory. When needed the brain "scans" the picture and reads the abstract data.
I am sure that this happens because when I look for a piece of text in a book (do not know the number of the page at that moment) mostly I remember perfectly the lay-out of the page (eg. proximately ends of allineas), find it, and then read the content.
If this being so there is no difference what so ever between random and non random strings.

Graphically registered, letters and numbers are equal. The memory is uncomputed graphics. Memory actually substitutes the yesterday's world, provides the info in a GRAPHIC representation of the past event and this past event is scanned and computed (at the moment when you give some mental attention to this event). This gives the brain even more info/density then previously thought, no compression, many pictures....

 

[Nasor]

Re: RE:Nasor/chroot

Originally posted by ProCop
I am afraid you both build your opinion on the wrong basis. You see the memory as a computing process, where in a memory register the number 5555555 wil be stored as abstract digits.

This is exactly the opposite of what I said. I explicitly said that storing data is not the same as using an algorithm to generate data.