Re: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Feb 2014, at 21:36, Chris de Morsella wrote:




From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2014 7:09 AM
Subject: Re: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis

Thanks for the link Chris.

>>It has also been discovered, some years ago, that glial cells are  
involved in chronic pain. Since then, I follow them closely. They do  
communicate chemically in some wavy way, and they do communicate to,  
and influence, neurons.
I still tend to think that neurons play the key role in the  
information treatment, and probably in the basic loops needed for  
consciousness, but I would not been astonished, that glial cells  
would be important for surviving some long period of time.
(Needless to say, for the UDA reversal, this is only a matter of  
making the substitution level lower, and this does not change the  
consequences.)


I agree that it seems highly probable that most of the brain  
activities underlying the mind -- out of which we experience the  
spontaneously arising sense of self,  the awareness of that self and  
all the other magnificent mysteries of consciousness -- are  
occurring primarily as phenomenon primarily rooted in the electro- 
chemical chirping, crackling activity occurring in our highly folded  
cortexual sheets and the hugely parallel neural/axonal  networks.


Though if indeed (as it appears) glial cells play a key role in  
cementing memories (and maybe in some chemically based manner  
perhaps even storing long term memories -- perhaps like an archival  
storage medium for (slow) chemically mediated recall mechanisms --  
then, in fact, it would be impossible to describe the working of the  
brain/mind without factoring in and understanding their role(s). It  
seems to me that -- at least some large portion of -- the glial  
cells may play a role like the one I am conjecturing.


Is the glial brain underlying the cortexual sheet is in fact a kind  
of chemical only -- and hence much slower by orders of magnitude --  
processor that the brain/mind uses as a permanent archive for long  
term memories that adjacent populations of neurons use kind of like  
a hard drive or maybe an archival drive/tape backup? It certainly  
seems like these cells are playing some role; what if our brains  
have glial cell hard drives.


I was not aware of the role these types of brain cells (comprising  
around 90% of the brains cells) also are somehow involved in  
mediating the experience of pain (what about other sensations and  
emotions?) -- that is interesting.


In terms of information theory -- or comp in this case -- not all  
that much changes. It is more like an extension of the electro- 
chemical cortex and the operations it performs are chemically  
mediated and so are much slower than electrical switches. However I  
also agree that this would not qualitatively change the essential  
nature of the brain as a biological computer, albeit an incredibly  
complex and highly parallel one with vast numbers of neurons and  
even vaster numbers of vertices.



I would not be astonished that, if someone accept a brain transplant  
based on on the neuronal network, he would pretend having survived,  
when coming back from the hospital, but then get sleep problems, and  
developing chronical pains, long term memory damages, so that after  
one month, he has to come back to the hospital, and wait for a better  
transplant taking into account more of the glial cells. Of course that  
would be more expensive. Lowering the level makes the transplant more  
expensive of course.


Brains are terribly complex structures, that seems rather clear.

Bruno






Chris

Bruno


On 06 Feb 2014, at 07:59, Chris de Morsella wrote:

Liz - The pace of what we are discovering about the brain makes  
everything we know about it a moving goal post; case in point the  
key role it now appears astrocytes or glial cells play in the  
formation of memories. Astrocytes account for around 90% of all  
brain cells. This indicates to my view of things that until we  
really do understand the actual mechanisms (and the second follow  
on ring of emergent meta-mechanisms that characterize and emerge  
within vastly parallel networks as well), it is too early to put  
hard upper boundaries on capacity.  If we are just now discovering  
previously overlooked critical actors for the formation of  
memories; do we even really know that much about the physical  
mechanisms for memory in the brain?
This is, as you may have guessed, a subject in which I am fairly  
interested; I believe a rigorous micro and dynamic network scale  
understanding of brain functioning is required in order to form a  
theory of consciousness, self-aware intelligence etc. I also feel  
we are getting tantalizingly close to a kind of gestalt moment when  
all the pieces will emerge naturally as one whole dynamic elegant  
theory that will win someone a Nobel prize and a grand  
understanding of the brain/mi

Re: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis

[Chris de Morsella]

 From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2014 7:09 AM
Subject: Re: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis
 


Thanks for the link Chris. 

>>It has also been discovered, some years ago, that glial cells are involved in 
>>chronic pain. Since then, I follow them closely. They do communicate 
>>chemically in some wavy way, and they do communicate to, and influence, 
>>neurons.
I still tend to think that neurons play the key role in the information 
treatment, and probably in the basic loops needed for consciousness, but I 
would not been astonished, that glial cells would be important for surviving 
some long period of time. 
(Needless to say, for the UDA reversal, this is only a matter of making the 
substitution level lower, and this does not change the consequences.)

I agree that it seems highly probable that most of the brain activities 
underlying the mind -- out of which we experience the spontaneously arising 
sense of self,  the awareness of that self and all the other magnificent 
mysteries of consciousness -- are occurring primarily as phenomenon primarily 
rooted in the electro-chemical chirping, crackling activity occurring in our 
highly folded cortexual sheets and the hugely parallel neural/axonal  networks.

Though if indeed (as it appears) glial cells play a key role in cementing 
memories (and maybe in some chemically based manner perhaps even storing long 
term memories -- perhaps like an archival storage medium for (slow) chemically 
mediated recall mechanisms -- then, in fact, it would be impossible to describe 
the working of the brain/mind without factoring in and understanding their 
role(s). It seems to me that -- at least some large portion of -- the glial 
cells may play a role like the one I am conjecturing.

Is the glial brain underlying the cortexual sheet is in fact a kind of chemical 
only -- and hence much slower by orders of magnitude -- processor that the 
brain/mind uses as a permanent archive for long term memories that adjacent 
populations of neurons use kind of like a hard drive or maybe an archival 
drive/tape backup? It certainly seems like these cells are playing some role; 
what if our brains have glial cell hard drives.

I was not aware of the role these types of brain cells (comprising around 90% 
of the brains cells) also are somehow involved in mediating the experience of 
pain (what about other sensations and emotions?) -- that is interesting.

In terms of information theory -- or comp in this case -- not all that much 
changes. It is more like an extension of the electro-chemical cortex and the 
operations it performs are chemically mediated and so are much slower than 
electrical switches. However I also agree that this would not qualitatively 
change the essential nature of the brain as a biological computer, albeit an 
incredibly complex and highly parallel one with vast numbers of neurons and 
even vaster numbers of vertices.

Chris

Bruno



On 06 Feb 2014, at 07:59, Chris de Morsella wrote:

Liz – The pace of what we are discovering about the brain makes everything we 
know about it a moving goal post; case in point the key role it now appears 
astrocytes or glial cells play in the formation of memories. Astrocytes account 
for around 90% of all brain cells. This indicates to my view of things that 
until we really do understand the actual mechanisms (and the second follow on 
ring of emergent meta-mechanisms that characterize and emerge within vastly 
parallel networks as well), it is too early to put hard upper boundaries on 
capacity.  If we are just now discovering previously overlooked critical actors 
for the formation of memories; do we even really know that much about the 
physical mechanisms for memory in the brain?
>This is, as you may have guessed, a subject in which I am fairly interested; I 
>believe a rigorous micro and dynamic network scale understanding of brain 
>functioning is required in order to form a theory of consciousness, self-aware 
>intelligence etc. I also feel we are getting tantalizingly close to a kind of 
>gestalt moment when all the pieces will emerge naturally as one whole dynamic 
>elegant theory that will win someone a Nobel prize and a grand understanding 
>of the brain/mind and of ourselves emerges.
>Cheers,
>Chris
> 
>From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
>[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
>Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 9:32 PM
>To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>Subject: Re: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis
> 
>This is a very interesting point. What is the estimated capacity of the human 
>brain? I seem to recalls some 10^17 bits being mentioned somewhere, or at 
>least that figure has stuck in my mind (but not having an eidetic memory, or 
>much of a normal one, I can't say where from).
> 
>On 

Re: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis

[Bruno Marchal]

Thanks for the link Chris.

It has also been discovered, some years ago, that glial cells are  
involved in chronic pain. Since then, I follow them closely. They do  
communicate chemically in some wavy way, and they do communicate to,  
and influence, neurons.
I still tend to think that neurons play the key role in the  
information treatment, and probably in the basic loops needed for  
consciousness, but I would not been astonished, that glial cells would  
be important for surviving some long period of time.
(Needless to say, for the UDA reversal, this is only a matter of  
making the substitution level lower, and this does not change the  
consequences.)


Bruno


On 06 Feb 2014, at 07:59, Chris de Morsella wrote:

Liz - The pace of what we are discovering about the brain makes  
everything we know about it a moving goal post; case in point the  
key role it now appears astrocytes or glial cells play in the  
formation of memories. Astrocytes account for around 90% of all  
brain cells. This indicates to my view of things that until we  
really do understand the actual mechanisms (and the second follow on  
ring of emergent meta-mechanisms that characterize and emerge within  
vastly parallel networks as well), it is too early to put hard upper  
boundaries on capacity.  If we are just now discovering previously  
overlooked critical actors for the formation of memories; do we even  
really know that much about the physical mechanisms for memory in  
the brain?
This is, as you may have guessed, a subject in which I am fairly  
interested; I believe a rigorous micro and dynamic network scale  
understanding of brain functioning is required in order to form a  
theory of consciousness, self-aware intelligence etc. I also feel we  
are getting tantalizingly close to a kind of gestalt moment when all  
the pieces will emerge naturally as one whole dynamic elegant theory  
that will win someone a Nobel prize and a grand understanding of the  
brain/mind and of ourselves emerges.

Cheers,
Chris

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
] On Behalf Of LizR

Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 9:32 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis

This is a very interesting point. What is the estimated capacity of  
the human brain? I seem to recalls some 10^17 bits being mentioned  
somewhere, or at least that figure has stuck in my mind (but not  
having an eidetic memory, or much of a normal one, I can't say where  
from).



On 6 February 2014 15:58, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

An aspect of my string cosmology is that the metaverse contains a 4D- 
space (in which one space axis is time)
that records every event that ever happened in this and every  
universe much like the Akashic Records.

Eidetics and gurus can apparently time travel in this block-space.
Richard


On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 8:32 PM, Pierz  wrote:
The phenomenon of eidetic (photographic) memory is well established  
as a reality. For an example of what it means, read the top answer  
to thisquora.com question. People with this gift/disability remember  
every moment of their lives in perfect detail. To me this raises  
real questions about the comp hypothesis and the 'yes doctor'.  
Consider the 'RAM' required for this type of recall. Memories are 3d  
and 'retina' resolution. If we consider that an hour of Blu-ray  
footage consumes about 30Gb, then some rough calculations show that  
Blu-ray quality footage of an entire life of 60 years would consume  
around 17,000 terabytes of storage. But these memories include  
tactile, olfactory and cognitive channels as well as visual and  
auditory information, and of course the resolution of the visual  
system is far better than Blu-ray. I'd take a rough guess and say  
that full recording of a person's mental experience in all external  
and internal channels would have to require hundreds or even  
thousands of times the bandwidth of Blu-ray. But even at what I'd  
think would be an extremely conservative estimate of a hundred  
times, we're up near two million terabytes (two exabytes). What's  
more, there appears to be no strain, no sign of running out of space  
at all, as if capacity was simply not an issue. This type of example  
makes me really question whether digital prosthetics are a real  
possibility at all - it looks to me strongly suggestive of a totally  
different way of recording information, or even of the possibility  
that recording and storage are the wrong metaphor entirely.  
'Christian' in the above quora response says that he has little  
means of distinguishing a memory from a live experience, making for  
a very confusing mental life. This type of memory looks more like a  
kind of time travel than a recording. Perhaps this is still  
compatible with Bruno's version of comp - the universal subject  
inhabiting the p

Re: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis

[LizR]

On 7 February 2014 14:20, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 4:44 PM, LizR  wrote:
>
>> On 7 February 2014 02:01, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:36 AM, LizR  wrote:
>>>
 So he's saying the number of proteins you COULD make from around 60
 amino acids exceeds the Lloyd limit - not that there in fact is a Lloyd
 limit's worth of information stored in a given protein, brain, organism or
 even biosphere.

>>>
>>> No. Read again
>>>
>>
>> OK...
>>
>>
>>> It is of interest to determine just how complex a physical system has to
>>> be to encounter the Lloyd limit. For most purposes in physical science the
>>> limit is too weak to make a jot of difference. But in cases where the
>>> parameters of the system are combinatorically explosive, the limit can be
>>> significant. For example, proteins are made of strings of 20 different
>>> sorts of amino acids, and the combinatoric possibility space has more
>>> dimensions than the Lloyd limit of 10^120 when the number of amino
>>> acids is greater than about 60 (Davies, 2004).
>>>
>>
>> That still seems to be saying what I just said. The "dimensions in
>> possibility space" is surely equivalent to the number of different proteins
>> you could make?
>>
>

> NO WAY
>
>>
>> Go on then, what is it saying? Please give a little more explanation, if
you keep on just saying "no" I will have to assume you don't actually have
anything of interest to say.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis

[Richard Ruquist]

OK, I concede. I read Davies 2004 for a fuller explanation,
"


On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 8:38 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 7 February 2014 14:20, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 4:44 PM, LizR  wrote:
>>
>>> On 7 February 2014 02:01, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>>>
 On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:36 AM, LizR  wrote:

> So he's saying the number of proteins you COULD make from around 60
> amino acids exceeds the Lloyd limit - not that there in fact is a Lloyd
> limit's worth of information stored in a given protein, brain, organism or
> even biosphere.
>

 No. Read again

>>>
>>> OK...
>>>
>>>
 It is of interest to determine just how complex a physical system has
 to be to encounter the Lloyd limit. For most purposes in physical science
 the limit is too weak to make a jot of difference. But in cases where the
 parameters of the system are combinatorically explosive, the limit can be
 significant. For example, proteins are made of strings of 20 different
 sorts of amino acids, and the combinatoric possibility space has more
 dimensions than the Lloyd limit of 10^120 when the number of amino
 acids is greater than about 60 (Davies, 2004).

>>>
>>> That still seems to be saying what I just said. The "dimensions in
>>> possibility space" is surely equivalent to the number of different proteins
>>> you could make?
>>>
>>
>
>>  NO WAY
>>
>>>
>>> Go on then, what is it saying? Please give a little more explanation, if
> you keep on just saying "no" I will have to assume you don't actually have
> anything of interest to say.
>

OK, I concede. I read Davies 2004 for a fuller explanation, and I found
nothing relevant to his remarks that are under discussion.
He wrote one paragraph on the Lloyd limit and concluded "These sorts of
arguments are at best suggestive". In fact the entire paper was about
quantum effects in biology. He even suggests replacing bits by qubits. No
mention of "60 amino acids is about the size of the smallest functional
protein" and so on. I agree that he is talking about the number of
different protein configurations that may be made and when that number
exceeds the Lloyd limit, strong emergence may result in some such proteins
actually being made. But that seems very ad hoc to me now- something you
seem to have realized immediately.
My apologies, Richard



"

>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis

[LizR]

On 7 February 2014 15:47, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

> He wrote one paragraph on the Lloyd limit and concluded "These sorts of
> arguments are at best suggestive". In fact the entire paper was about
> quantum effects in biology. He even suggests replacing bits by qubits. No
> mention of "60 amino acids is about the size of the smallest functional
> protein" and so on. I agree that he is talking about the number of
> different protein configurations that may be made and when that number
> exceeds the Lloyd limit, strong emergence may result in some such proteins
> actually being made. But that seems very ad hoc to me now- something you
> seem to have realized immediately.
> My apologies, Richard
>
> OK. Sorry if I was a bit sharp.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis

[Richard Ruquist]

On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 4:44 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 7 February 2014 02:01, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:36 AM, LizR  wrote:
>>
>>> So he's saying the number of proteins you COULD make from around 60
>>> amino acids exceeds the Lloyd limit - not that there in fact is a Lloyd
>>> limit's worth of information stored in a given protein, brain, organism or
>>> even biosphere.
>>>
>>
>> No. Read again
>>
>
> OK...
>
>
>> It is of interest to determine just how complex a physical system has to
>> be to encounter the Lloyd limit. For most purposes in physical science the
>> limit is too weak to make a jot of difference. But in cases where the
>> parameters of the system are combinatorically explosive, the limit can be
>> significant. For example, proteins are made of strings of 20 different
>> sorts of amino acids, and the combinatoric possibility space has more
>> dimensions than the Lloyd limit of 10^120 when the number of amino acids
>> is greater than about 60 (Davies, 2004).
>>
>
> That still seems to be saying what I just said. The "dimensions in
> possibility space" is surely equivalent to the number of different proteins
> you could make?
>
NO WAY

>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis

[Gabriel Bodeen]

On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 7:32:51 PM UTC-6, Pierz wrote:
>
> The phenomenon of eidetic (photographic) memory is well established as a 
> reality. ...
>

Huh, are you sure?  I remember always hearing that it was a myth.   I 
didn't find anything which settles it conclusively in a brief search, but 
http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Eidetic_imagery is worth a look.  As 
usual, the reality is more nuanced than popular notions suggest.

-Gabe

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis

[LizR]

On 7 February 2014 06:59, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> On 06 Feb 2014, at 02:32, Pierz wrote:
>
> The phenomenon of eidetic (photographic) memory is well established as a
> reality. For an example of what it means, read the top answer to this 
> quora.com
> question.
> People with this gift/disability remember every moment of their lives in 
> *perfect
> *detail. To me this raises real questions about the comp hypothesis and
> the 'yes doctor'. Consider the 'RAM' required for this type of recall.
> Memories are 3d and 'retina' resolution. If we consider that an hour of
> Blu-ray footage consumes about 30Gb, then some rough calculations show that
> Blu-ray quality footage of an entire life of 60 years would consume around
> 17,000 terabytes of storage. But these memories include tactile, olfactory
> and cognitive channels as well as visual and auditory information, and of
> course the resolution of the visual system is far better than Blu-ray. I'd
> take a rough guess and say that full recording of a person's mental
> experience in all external and internal channels would have to require
> hundreds or even thousands of times the bandwidth of Blu-ray. But even at
> what I'd think would be an extremely conservative estimate of a hundred
> times, we're up near two million terabytes (two exabytes). What's more,
> there appears to be no strain, no sign of running out of space at all, as
> if capacity was simply not an issue. This type of example makes me really
> question whether digital prosthetics are a real possibility at all - it
> looks to me strongly suggestive of a totally different way of recording
> information, or even of the possibility that recording and storage are the
> wrong metaphor entirely. 'Christian' in the above quora response says that
> he has little means of distinguishing a memory from a live experience,
> making for a very confusing mental life. This type of memory looks more
> like a kind of time travel than a recording. Perhaps this is still
> compatible with Bruno's version of comp - the universal subject inhabiting
> the pure space of Number - but it's more problematic for step one of the
> whole argument that leads to this vision, namely saying 'yes' to a digital
> brain.
>
> Yes, it makes the neuro-mechanist assumption doubtful (perhaps), but that
> hypothesis is eliminated at step seven.
>
> Now, I am not sure that there is no place in brain for such big memories,
> somehow compressed, inclduing the glials, and who knows RNA or something.
> Nor am I sure of your literal account of hypermnesia. Hypermnesics have
> quite impressive memory faculties, but those which memories are immediate,
> are so much handicapped that they are hard to test, some have buffer
> problem, etc. As Christian says; it leads to a very confusing mental life,
> making their accounts also confusing.
>
> Roughly speaking, you seem to be saying that having an eidetic memory
leaves little space for anything else. So could that be used to estimate
the total capacity of the brain?

I'm guessing memories aren't stored in HD surroundsound, despite earlier
comments. The input stream is a lot of data, but surely memories are highly
compressed, even photographic ones? (Maybe not using MPEG...)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis

[LizR]

On 7 February 2014 02:01, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:36 AM, LizR  wrote:
>
>> So he's saying the number of proteins you COULD make from around 60 amino
>> acids exceeds the Lloyd limit - not that there in fact is a Lloyd limit's
>> worth of information stored in a given protein, brain, organism or even
>> biosphere.
>>
>
> No. Read again
>

OK...


> It is of interest to determine just how complex a physical system has to
> be to encounter the Lloyd limit. For most purposes in physical science the
> limit is too weak to make a jot of difference. But in cases where the
> parameters of the system are combinatorically explosive, the limit can be
> significant. For example, proteins are made of strings of 20 different
> sorts of amino acids, and the combinatoric possibility space has more
> dimensions than the Lloyd limit of 10^120 when the number of amino acids
> is greater than about 60 (Davies, 2004).
>

That still seems to be saying what I just said. The "dimensions in
possibility space" is surely equivalent to the number of different proteins
you could make?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis

[Bruno Marchal]

On 06 Feb 2014, at 02:32, Pierz wrote:

The phenomenon of eidetic (photographic) memory is well established  
as a reality. For an example of what it means, read the top answer  
to this quora.com question. People with this gift/disability  
remember every moment of their lives in perfect detail. To me this  
raises real questions about the comp hypothesis and the 'yes  
doctor'. Consider the 'RAM' required for this type of recall.  
Memories are 3d and 'retina' resolution. If we consider that an hour  
of Blu-ray footage consumes about 30Gb, then some rough calculations  
show that Blu-ray quality footage of an entire life of 60 years  
would consume around 17,000 terabytes of storage. But these memories  
include tactile, olfactory and cognitive channels as well as visual  
and auditory information, and of course the resolution of the visual  
system is far better than Blu-ray. I'd take a rough guess and say  
that full recording of a person's mental experience in all external  
and internal channels would have to require hundreds or even  
thousands of times the bandwidth of Blu-ray. But even at what I'd  
think would be an extremely conservative estimate of a hundred  
times, we're up near two million terabytes (two exabytes). What's  
more, there appears to be no strain, no sign of running out of space  
at all, as if capacity was simply not an issue. This type of example  
makes me really question whether digital prosthetics are a real  
possibility at all - it looks to me strongly suggestive of a totally  
different way of recording information, or even of the possibility  
that recording and storage are the wrong metaphor entirely.  
'Christian' in the above quora response says that he has little  
means of distinguishing a memory from a live experience, making for  
a very confusing mental life. This type of memory looks more like a  
kind of time travel than a recording. Perhaps this is still  
compatible with Bruno's version of comp - the universal subject  
inhabiting the pure space of Number - but it's more problematic for  
step one of the whole argument that leads to this vision, namely  
saying 'yes' to a digital brain.


Yes, it makes the neuro-mechanist assumption doubtful (perhaps), but  
that hypothesis is eliminated at step seven.


Now, I am not sure that there is no place in brain for such big  
memories, somehow compressed, inclduing the glials, and who knows RNA  
or something. Nor am I sure of your literal account of hypermnesia.  
Hypermnesics have quite impressive memory faculties, but those which  
memories are immediate, are so much handicapped that they are hard to  
test, some have buffer problem, etc. As Christian says; it leads to a  
very confusing mental life, making their accounts also confusing.


Bruno







--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis

[Edgar L. Owen]

Richard,

In a weak sense this Akashic records stuff has some merit.

The theory I present in my book is that reality is computational. This 
means that the computational interactions of information forms changes 
those information forms and those changes encode prior information states 
in a distributed fashion among subsequent information states. 

I call this 'The Sherlock Holmes Principle'. Which states that all current 
information contains distributed traces of past information, all the way 
back to the big bang. Thus given sufficient capability it is possible to 
'read' past information states from current information states. This is of 
course obviously the basis of scientific method and all knowledge but it 
does have deeper implications.

Why? Because it implies that everything without exception is only the 
information of what it is. And the information of what it is is the current 
result of all its past computational interactions, Thus everything without 
exception is its information history, its computational history. And that 
all past information still exists in a distributed manner in all current 
information (subject to some constraints imposed by quantum granularity). 
And some other stuff as well...

So in that sense, it is possible to theoretically read all information from 
the current information state of the universe.

Edgar

On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 9:58:32 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
>
>
> An aspect of my string cosmology is that the metaverse contains a 4D-space 
> (in which one space axis is time)
> that records every event that ever happened in this and every universe 
> much like the Akashic Records.
> Eidetics and gurus can apparently time travel in this block-space.
> Richard
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 8:32 PM, Pierz >wrote:
>
>> The phenomenon of eidetic (photographic) memory is well established as a 
>> reality. For an example of what it means, read the top answer to this 
>> quora.com 
>> question.
>>  
>> People with this gift/disability remember every moment of their lives in 
>> *perfect 
>> *detail. To me this raises real questions about the comp hypothesis and 
>> the 'yes doctor'. Consider the 'RAM' required for this type of recall. 
>> Memories are 3d and 'retina' resolution. If we consider that an hour of 
>> Blu-ray footage consumes about 30Gb, then some rough calculations show that 
>> Blu-ray quality footage of an entire life of 60 years would consume around 
>> 17,000 terabytes of storage. But these memories include tactile, olfactory 
>> and cognitive channels as well as visual and auditory information, and of 
>> course the resolution of the visual system is far better than Blu-ray. I'd 
>> take a rough guess and say that full recording of a person's mental 
>> experience in all external and internal channels would have to require 
>> hundreds or even thousands of times the bandwidth of Blu-ray. But even at 
>> what I'd think would be an extremely conservative estimate of a hundred 
>> times, we're up near two million terabytes (two exabytes). What's more, 
>> there appears to be no strain, no sign of running out of space at all, as 
>> if capacity was simply not an issue. This type of example makes me really 
>> question whether digital prosthetics are a real possibility at all - it 
>> looks to me strongly suggestive of a totally different way of recording 
>> information, or even of the possibility that recording and storage are the 
>> wrong metaphor entirely. 'Christian' in the above quora response says that 
>> he has little means of distinguishing a memory from a live experience, 
>> making for a very confusing mental life. This type of memory looks more 
>> like a kind of time travel than a recording. Perhaps this is still 
>> compatible with Bruno's version of comp - the universal subject inhabiting 
>> the pure space of Number - but it's more problematic for step one of the 
>> whole argument that leads to this vision, namely saying 'yes' to a digital 
>> brain.
>>
>>
>>
>>  -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-lis

Re: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis

[Edgar L. Owen]

PIerz,

Of course the very concept of true eidetic memory is totally impossible. 
The total amount of data in the local environment in any single second is 
many orders of magnitude greater than the total capacity of a human brain. 

No one comes even vaguely close e.g. to remembering the position of every 
leaf in the trees around him in a forest, or every leaf of grass and all 
the insects. All this stuff is individually viewable at any given time but 
simply can't be remembered, much less how all that is changing every second.

What is really meant by eidetic memory is just memory superior in detail to 
ordinary memory. It's just one more of the many buzz concepts scientists 
invent without thinking through the actual implications..

Edgar

On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 8:32:51 PM UTC-5, Pierz wrote:
>
> The phenomenon of eidetic (photographic) memory is well established as a 
> reality. For an example of what it means, read the top answer to this 
> quora.com 
> question.
>  
> People with this gift/disability remember every moment of their lives in 
> *perfect 
> *detail. To me this raises real questions about the comp hypothesis and 
> the 'yes doctor'. Consider the 'RAM' required for this type of recall. 
> Memories are 3d and 'retina' resolution. If we consider that an hour of 
> Blu-ray footage consumes about 30Gb, then some rough calculations show that 
> Blu-ray quality footage of an entire life of 60 years would consume around 
> 17,000 terabytes of storage. But these memories include tactile, olfactory 
> and cognitive channels as well as visual and auditory information, and of 
> course the resolution of the visual system is far better than Blu-ray. I'd 
> take a rough guess and say that full recording of a person's mental 
> experience in all external and internal channels would have to require 
> hundreds or even thousands of times the bandwidth of Blu-ray. But even at 
> what I'd think would be an extremely conservative estimate of a hundred 
> times, we're up near two million terabytes (two exabytes). What's more, 
> there appears to be no strain, no sign of running out of space at all, as 
> if capacity was simply not an issue. This type of example makes me really 
> question whether digital prosthetics are a real possibility at all - it 
> looks to me strongly suggestive of a totally different way of recording 
> information, or even of the possibility that recording and storage are the 
> wrong metaphor entirely. 'Christian' in the above quora response says that 
> he has little means of distinguishing a memory from a live experience, 
> making for a very confusing mental life. This type of memory looks more 
> like a kind of time travel than a recording. Perhaps this is still 
> compatible with Bruno's version of comp - the universal subject inhabiting 
> the pure space of Number - but it's more problematic for step one of the 
> whole argument that leads to this vision, namely saying 'yes' to a digital 
> brain.
>
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis

[Richard Ruquist]

On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:36 AM, LizR  wrote:

> So he's saying the number of proteins you COULD make from around 60 amino
> acids exceeds the Lloyd limit - not that there in fact is a Lloyd limit's
> worth of information stored in a given protein, brain, organism or even
> biosphere.
>

No. Read again


>
> I'm not sure how significant that is. I mean, my hard drive could in
> principle store something like 2 ^ 4,500,000,000,000 possible combinations
> of bits, which is well above Lloyd's limit, but as far as I know it isn't
> alive.
>
> (Although it does keep refusing to open the DVD bay doors...)
>
>
>
>
> On 6 February 2014 20:29, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
>> Opps. My memory is not eidetic as well. Here is the pertinent quote from
>> Davies article referenced above:
>>
>> "For example, proteins are made of strings of 20 different sorts of amino
>> acids, and the combinatoric possibility space has more dimensions than the
>> Lloyd limit of 10^ 120 when the number of amino acids is greater than
>> about 60 (Davies, 2004). Curiously, 60 amino acids is about the size of
>> the smallest
>> functional protein, suggesting that the threshold for life might
>> correspond to the threshold
>> for strong emergence, supporting the contention that life is an emergent
>> phenomenon (in
>> the strong sense of emergence)."
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:22 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 12:31 AM, LizR  wrote:
>>>
 This is a very interesting point. What is the estimated capacity of the
 human brain? I seem to recalls some 10^17 bits being mentioned somewhere,
 or at least that figure has stuck in my mind (but not having an eidetic
 memory, or much of a normal one, I can't say where from).

>>>
>>> PCW Davies claims that a human brain neuron requires about 10^120 bits;
>>> and therefore, since this is the Lloyd Limit for the available bits in
>>> our observable universe,
>>>  neurons may be at the threshold for consciousness.
>>> http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0602/0602420.pdf
>>>


 On 6 February 2014 15:58, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

>
> An aspect of my string cosmology is that the metaverse contains a
> 4D-space (in which one space axis is time)
> that records every event that ever happened in this and every universe
> much like the Akashic Records.
> Eidetics and gurus can apparently time travel in this block-space.
> Richard
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 8:32 PM, Pierz  wrote:
>
>> The phenomenon of eidetic (photographic) memory is well established
>> as a reality. For an example of what it means, read the top answer to 
>> this quora.com
>> question.
>> People with this gift/disability remember every moment of their lives in 
>> *perfect
>> *detail. To me this raises real questions about the comp hypothesis
>> and the 'yes doctor'. Consider the 'RAM' required for this type of 
>> recall.
>> Memories are 3d and 'retina' resolution. If we consider that an hour of
>> Blu-ray footage consumes about 30Gb, then some rough calculations show 
>> that
>> Blu-ray quality footage of an entire life of 60 years would consume 
>> around
>> 17,000 terabytes of storage. But these memories include tactile, 
>> olfactory
>> and cognitive channels as well as visual and auditory information, and of
>> course the resolution of the visual system is far better than Blu-ray. 
>> I'd
>> take a rough guess and say that full recording of a person's mental
>> experience in all external and internal channels would have to require
>> hundreds or even thousands of times the bandwidth of Blu-ray. But even at
>> what I'd think would be an extremely conservative estimate of a hundred
>> times, we're up near two million terabytes (two exabytes). What's more,
>> there appears to be no strain, no sign of running out of space at all, as
>> if capacity was simply not an issue. This type of example makes me really
>> question whether digital prosthetics are a real possibility at all - it
>> looks to me strongly suggestive of a totally different way of recording
>> information, or even of the possibility that recording and storage are 
>> the
>> wrong metaphor entirely. 'Christian' in the above quora response says 
>> that
>> he has little means of distinguishing a memory from a live experience,
>> making for a very confusing mental life. This type of memory looks more
>> like a kind of time travel than a recording. Perhaps this is still
>> compatible with Bruno's version

Re: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis

[LizR]

So he's saying the number of proteins you COULD make from around 60 amino
acids exceeds the Lloyd limit - not that there in fact is a Lloyd limit's
worth of information stored in a given protein, brain, organism or even
biosphere.

I'm not sure how significant that is. I mean, my hard drive could in
principle store something like 2 ^ 4,500,000,000,000 possible combinations
of bits, which is well above Lloyd's limit, but as far as I know it isn't
alive.

(Although it does keep refusing to open the DVD bay doors...)




On 6 February 2014 20:29, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

> Opps. My memory is not eidetic as well. Here is the pertinent quote from
> Davies article referenced above:
>
> "For example, proteins are made of strings of 20 different sorts of amino
> acids, and the combinatoric possibility space has more dimensions than the
> Lloyd limit of 10^ 120 when the number of amino acids is greater than
> about 60 (Davies, 2004). Curiously, 60 amino acids is about the size of
> the smallest
> functional protein, suggesting that the threshold for life might
> correspond to the threshold
> for strong emergence, supporting the contention that life is an emergent
> phenomenon (in
> the strong sense of emergence)."
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:22 AM, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 12:31 AM, LizR  wrote:
>>
>>> This is a very interesting point. What is the estimated capacity of the
>>> human brain? I seem to recalls some 10^17 bits being mentioned somewhere,
>>> or at least that figure has stuck in my mind (but not having an eidetic
>>> memory, or much of a normal one, I can't say where from).
>>>
>>
>> PCW Davies claims that a human brain neuron requires about 10^120 bits;
>> and therefore, since this is the Lloyd Limit for the available bits in
>> our observable universe,
>>  neurons may be at the threshold for consciousness.
>> http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0602/0602420.pdf
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6 February 2014 15:58, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>>>

 An aspect of my string cosmology is that the metaverse contains a
 4D-space (in which one space axis is time)
 that records every event that ever happened in this and every universe
 much like the Akashic Records.
 Eidetics and gurus can apparently time travel in this block-space.
 Richard


 On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 8:32 PM, Pierz  wrote:

> The phenomenon of eidetic (photographic) memory is well established as
> a reality. For an example of what it means, read the top answer to this 
> quora.com
> question.
> People with this gift/disability remember every moment of their lives in 
> *perfect
> *detail. To me this raises real questions about the comp hypothesis
> and the 'yes doctor'. Consider the 'RAM' required for this type of recall.
> Memories are 3d and 'retina' resolution. If we consider that an hour of
> Blu-ray footage consumes about 30Gb, then some rough calculations show 
> that
> Blu-ray quality footage of an entire life of 60 years would consume around
> 17,000 terabytes of storage. But these memories include tactile, olfactory
> and cognitive channels as well as visual and auditory information, and of
> course the resolution of the visual system is far better than Blu-ray. I'd
> take a rough guess and say that full recording of a person's mental
> experience in all external and internal channels would have to require
> hundreds or even thousands of times the bandwidth of Blu-ray. But even at
> what I'd think would be an extremely conservative estimate of a hundred
> times, we're up near two million terabytes (two exabytes). What's more,
> there appears to be no strain, no sign of running out of space at all, as
> if capacity was simply not an issue. This type of example makes me really
> question whether digital prosthetics are a real possibility at all - it
> looks to me strongly suggestive of a totally different way of recording
> information, or even of the possibility that recording and storage are the
> wrong metaphor entirely. 'Christian' in the above quora response says that
> he has little means of distinguishing a memory from a live experience,
> making for a very confusing mental life. This type of memory looks more
> like a kind of time travel than a recording. Perhaps this is still
> compatible with Bruno's version of comp - the universal subject inhabiting
> the pure space of Number - but it's more problematic for step one of the
> whole argument that leads to this vision, namely saying 'yes' to a digital
> brain.
>>

Re: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis

[Richard Ruquist]

Opps. My memory is not eidetic as well. Here is the pertinent quote from
Davies article referenced above:

"For example, proteins are made of strings of 20 different sorts of amino
acids, and the combinatoric possibility space has more dimensions than the
Lloyd limit of 10^ 120 when the number of amino acids is greater than
about 60 (Davies, 2004). Curiously, 60 amino acids is about the size of the
smallest
functional protein, suggesting that the threshold for life might correspond
to the threshold
for strong emergence, supporting the contention that life is an emergent
phenomenon (in
the strong sense of emergence)."


On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:22 AM, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 12:31 AM, LizR  wrote:
>
>> This is a very interesting point. What is the estimated capacity of the
>> human brain? I seem to recalls some 10^17 bits being mentioned somewhere,
>> or at least that figure has stuck in my mind (but not having an eidetic
>> memory, or much of a normal one, I can't say where from).
>>
>
> PCW Davies claims that a human brain neuron requires about 10^120 bits;
> and therefore, since this is the Lloyd Limit for the available bits in our
> observable universe,
> neurons may be at the threshold for consciousness.
> http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0602/0602420.pdf
>
>>
>>
>> On 6 February 2014 15:58, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> An aspect of my string cosmology is that the metaverse contains a
>>> 4D-space (in which one space axis is time)
>>> that records every event that ever happened in this and every universe
>>> much like the Akashic Records.
>>> Eidetics and gurus can apparently time travel in this block-space.
>>> Richard
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 8:32 PM, Pierz  wrote:
>>>
 The phenomenon of eidetic (photographic) memory is well established as
 a reality. For an example of what it means, read the top answer to this 
 quora.com
 question.
 People with this gift/disability remember every moment of their lives in 
 *perfect
 *detail. To me this raises real questions about the comp hypothesis
 and the 'yes doctor'. Consider the 'RAM' required for this type of recall.
 Memories are 3d and 'retina' resolution. If we consider that an hour of
 Blu-ray footage consumes about 30Gb, then some rough calculations show that
 Blu-ray quality footage of an entire life of 60 years would consume around
 17,000 terabytes of storage. But these memories include tactile, olfactory
 and cognitive channels as well as visual and auditory information, and of
 course the resolution of the visual system is far better than Blu-ray. I'd
 take a rough guess and say that full recording of a person's mental
 experience in all external and internal channels would have to require
 hundreds or even thousands of times the bandwidth of Blu-ray. But even at
 what I'd think would be an extremely conservative estimate of a hundred
 times, we're up near two million terabytes (two exabytes). What's more,
 there appears to be no strain, no sign of running out of space at all, as
 if capacity was simply not an issue. This type of example makes me really
 question whether digital prosthetics are a real possibility at all - it
 looks to me strongly suggestive of a totally different way of recording
 information, or even of the possibility that recording and storage are the
 wrong metaphor entirely. 'Christian' in the above quora response says that
 he has little means of distinguishing a memory from a live experience,
 making for a very confusing mental life. This type of memory looks more
 like a kind of time travel than a recording. Perhaps this is still
 compatible with Bruno's version of comp - the universal subject inhabiting
 the pure space of Number - but it's more problematic for step one of the
 whole argument that leads to this vision, namely saying 'yes' to a digital
 brain.



  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups "Everything List" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
 an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

>>>
>>>  --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails fr

Re: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis

[Richard Ruquist]

On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 12:31 AM, LizR  wrote:

> This is a very interesting point. What is the estimated capacity of the
> human brain? I seem to recalls some 10^17 bits being mentioned somewhere,
> or at least that figure has stuck in my mind (but not having an eidetic
> memory, or much of a normal one, I can't say where from).
>

PCW Davies claims that a human brain neuron requires about 10^120 bits;
and therefore, since this is the Lloyd Limit for the available bits in our
observable universe,
neurons may be at the threshold for consciousness.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0602/0602420.pdf

>
>
> On 6 February 2014 15:58, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
>>
>> An aspect of my string cosmology is that the metaverse contains a
>> 4D-space (in which one space axis is time)
>> that records every event that ever happened in this and every universe
>> much like the Akashic Records.
>> Eidetics and gurus can apparently time travel in this block-space.
>> Richard
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 8:32 PM, Pierz  wrote:
>>
>>> The phenomenon of eidetic (photographic) memory is well established as a
>>> reality. For an example of what it means, read the top answer to this 
>>> quora.com
>>> question.
>>> People with this gift/disability remember every moment of their lives in 
>>> *perfect
>>> *detail. To me this raises real questions about the comp hypothesis and
>>> the 'yes doctor'. Consider the 'RAM' required for this type of recall.
>>> Memories are 3d and 'retina' resolution. If we consider that an hour of
>>> Blu-ray footage consumes about 30Gb, then some rough calculations show that
>>> Blu-ray quality footage of an entire life of 60 years would consume around
>>> 17,000 terabytes of storage. But these memories include tactile, olfactory
>>> and cognitive channels as well as visual and auditory information, and of
>>> course the resolution of the visual system is far better than Blu-ray. I'd
>>> take a rough guess and say that full recording of a person's mental
>>> experience in all external and internal channels would have to require
>>> hundreds or even thousands of times the bandwidth of Blu-ray. But even at
>>> what I'd think would be an extremely conservative estimate of a hundred
>>> times, we're up near two million terabytes (two exabytes). What's more,
>>> there appears to be no strain, no sign of running out of space at all, as
>>> if capacity was simply not an issue. This type of example makes me really
>>> question whether digital prosthetics are a real possibility at all - it
>>> looks to me strongly suggestive of a totally different way of recording
>>> information, or even of the possibility that recording and storage are the
>>> wrong metaphor entirely. 'Christian' in the above quora response says that
>>> he has little means of distinguishing a memory from a live experience,
>>> making for a very confusing mental life. This type of memory looks more
>>> like a kind of time travel than a recording. Perhaps this is still
>>> compatible with Bruno's version of comp - the universal subject inhabiting
>>> the pure space of Number - but it's more problematic for step one of the
>>> whole argument that leads to this vision, namely saying 'yes' to a digital
>>> brain.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>
>>
>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this mess

RE: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis

[Chris de Morsella]

Liz - The pace of what we are discovering about the brain makes everything
we know about it a moving goal post; case in point the key role it now
appears astrocytes or glial cells play in the formation of memories
<http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27913/title/Glial-cel
ls-aid-memory-formation/> . Astrocytes account for around 90% of all brain
cells. This indicates to my view of things that until we really do
understand the actual mechanisms (and the second follow on ring of emergent
meta-mechanisms that characterize and emerge within vastly parallel networks
as well), it is too early to put hard upper boundaries on capacity.  If we
are just now discovering previously overlooked critical actors for the
formation of memories; do we even really know that much about the physical
mechanisms for memory in the brain? 

This is, as you may have guessed, a subject in which I am fairly interested;
I believe a rigorous micro and dynamic network scale understanding of brain
functioning is required in order to form a theory of consciousness,
self-aware intelligence etc. I also feel we are getting tantalizingly close
to a kind of gestalt moment when all the pieces will emerge naturally as one
whole dynamic elegant theory that will win someone a Nobel prize and a grand
understanding of the brain/mind and of ourselves emerges.

Cheers,

Chris

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 9:32 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis

 

This is a very interesting point. What is the estimated capacity of the
human brain? I seem to recalls some 10^17 bits being mentioned somewhere, or
at least that figure has stuck in my mind (but not having an eidetic memory,
or much of a normal one, I can't say where from).

 

On 6 February 2014 15:58, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

 

An aspect of my string cosmology is that the metaverse contains a 4D-space
(in which one space axis is time)

that records every event that ever happened in this and every universe much
like the Akashic Records.

Eidetics and gurus can apparently time travel in this block-space.

Richard

 

On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 8:32 PM, Pierz  wrote:

The phenomenon of eidetic (photographic) memory is well established as a
reality. For an example of what it means, read the top answer to this
quora.com question
<http://www.quora.com/digest/track_click?hash=2e8ec7de05b636790212092c83f093
6e&aoid=pLlVYjWVKa&aoty=2&ty_data=4012999&ty=1&digest_id=241884556&click_pos
=1&st=1391558946766537&source=3&stories=1_L4sR6imoEQB%7C1_aytbQbnb2zW%7C1_jA
8otFvN9FH%7C1_4XH6bzBFPwr%7C1_4TMBUpDzRpy%7C1_8f6Kgdm4jXW%7C1_XDaAF5TDFVy%7C
1_zsSejxTjfe6&v=2&aty=4> . People with this gift/disability remember every
moment of their lives in perfect detail. To me this raises real questions
about the comp hypothesis and the 'yes doctor'. Consider the 'RAM' required
for this type of recall. Memories are 3d and 'retina' resolution. If we
consider that an hour of Blu-ray footage consumes about 30Gb, then some
rough calculations show that Blu-ray quality footage of an entire life of 60
years would consume around 17,000 terabytes of storage. But these memories
include tactile, olfactory and cognitive channels as well as visual and
auditory information, and of course the resolution of the visual system is
far better than Blu-ray. I'd take a rough guess and say that full recording
of a person's mental experience in all external and internal channels would
have to require hundreds or even thousands of times the bandwidth of
Blu-ray. But even at what I'd think would be an extremely conservative
estimate of a hundred times, we're up near two million terabytes (two
exabytes). What's more, there appears to be no strain, no sign of running
out of space at all, as if capacity was simply not an issue. This type of
example makes me really question whether digital prosthetics are a real
possibility at all - it looks to me strongly suggestive of a totally
different way of recording information, or even of the possibility that
recording and storage are the wrong metaphor entirely. 'Christian' in the
above quora response says that he has little means of distinguishing a
memory from a live experience, making for a very confusing mental life. This
type of memory looks more like a kind of time travel than a recording.
Perhaps this is still compatible with Bruno's version of comp - the
universal subject inhabiting the pure space of Number - but it's more
problematic for step one of the whole argument that leads to this vision,
namely saying 'yes' to a digital brain.

 

 

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop 

Re: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis

[LizR]

This is a very interesting point. What is the estimated capacity of the
human brain? I seem to recalls some 10^17 bits being mentioned somewhere,
or at least that figure has stuck in my mind (but not having an eidetic
memory, or much of a normal one, I can't say where from).


On 6 February 2014 15:58, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

>
> An aspect of my string cosmology is that the metaverse contains a 4D-space
> (in which one space axis is time)
> that records every event that ever happened in this and every universe
> much like the Akashic Records.
> Eidetics and gurus can apparently time travel in this block-space.
> Richard
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 8:32 PM, Pierz  wrote:
>
>> The phenomenon of eidetic (photographic) memory is well established as a
>> reality. For an example of what it means, read the top answer to this 
>> quora.com
>> question.
>> People with this gift/disability remember every moment of their lives in 
>> *perfect
>> *detail. To me this raises real questions about the comp hypothesis and
>> the 'yes doctor'. Consider the 'RAM' required for this type of recall.
>> Memories are 3d and 'retina' resolution. If we consider that an hour of
>> Blu-ray footage consumes about 30Gb, then some rough calculations show that
>> Blu-ray quality footage of an entire life of 60 years would consume around
>> 17,000 terabytes of storage. But these memories include tactile, olfactory
>> and cognitive channels as well as visual and auditory information, and of
>> course the resolution of the visual system is far better than Blu-ray. I'd
>> take a rough guess and say that full recording of a person's mental
>> experience in all external and internal channels would have to require
>> hundreds or even thousands of times the bandwidth of Blu-ray. But even at
>> what I'd think would be an extremely conservative estimate of a hundred
>> times, we're up near two million terabytes (two exabytes). What's more,
>> there appears to be no strain, no sign of running out of space at all, as
>> if capacity was simply not an issue. This type of example makes me really
>> question whether digital prosthetics are a real possibility at all - it
>> looks to me strongly suggestive of a totally different way of recording
>> information, or even of the possibility that recording and storage are the
>> wrong metaphor entirely. 'Christian' in the above quora response says that
>> he has little means of distinguishing a memory from a live experience,
>> making for a very confusing mental life. This type of memory looks more
>> like a kind of time travel than a recording. Perhaps this is still
>> compatible with Bruno's version of comp - the universal subject inhabiting
>> the pure space of Number - but it's more problematic for step one of the
>> whole argument that leads to this vision, namely saying 'yes' to a digital
>> brain.
>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis

[Richard Ruquist]

An aspect of my string cosmology is that the metaverse contains a 4D-space
(in which one space axis is time)
that records every event that ever happened in this and every universe much
like the Akashic Records.
Eidetics and gurus can apparently time travel in this block-space.
Richard


On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 8:32 PM, Pierz  wrote:

> The phenomenon of eidetic (photographic) memory is well established as a
> reality. For an example of what it means, read the top answer to this 
> quora.com
> question.
> People with this gift/disability remember every moment of their lives in 
> *perfect
> *detail. To me this raises real questions about the comp hypothesis and
> the 'yes doctor'. Consider the 'RAM' required for this type of recall.
> Memories are 3d and 'retina' resolution. If we consider that an hour of
> Blu-ray footage consumes about 30Gb, then some rough calculations show that
> Blu-ray quality footage of an entire life of 60 years would consume around
> 17,000 terabytes of storage. But these memories include tactile, olfactory
> and cognitive channels as well as visual and auditory information, and of
> course the resolution of the visual system is far better than Blu-ray. I'd
> take a rough guess and say that full recording of a person's mental
> experience in all external and internal channels would have to require
> hundreds or even thousands of times the bandwidth of Blu-ray. But even at
> what I'd think would be an extremely conservative estimate of a hundred
> times, we're up near two million terabytes (two exabytes). What's more,
> there appears to be no strain, no sign of running out of space at all, as
> if capacity was simply not an issue. This type of example makes me really
> question whether digital prosthetics are a real possibility at all - it
> looks to me strongly suggestive of a totally different way of recording
> information, or even of the possibility that recording and storage are the
> wrong metaphor entirely. 'Christian' in the above quora response says that
> he has little means of distinguishing a memory from a live experience,
> making for a very confusing mental life. This type of memory looks more
> like a kind of time travel than a recording. Perhaps this is still
> compatible with Bruno's version of comp - the universal subject inhabiting
> the pure space of Number - but it's more problematic for step one of the
> whole argument that leads to this vision, namely saying 'yes' to a digital
> brain.
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis

[Pierz]

The phenomenon of eidetic (photographic) memory is well established as a 
reality. For an example of what it means, read the top answer to this quora.com 
question.
 
People with this gift/disability remember every moment of their lives in 
*perfect 
*detail. To me this raises real questions about the comp hypothesis and the 
'yes doctor'. Consider the 'RAM' required for this type of recall. Memories 
are 3d and 'retina' resolution. If we consider that an hour of Blu-ray 
footage consumes about 30Gb, then some rough calculations show that Blu-ray 
quality footage of an entire life of 60 years would consume around 17,000 
terabytes of storage. But these memories include tactile, olfactory and 
cognitive channels as well as visual and auditory information, and of 
course the resolution of the visual system is far better than Blu-ray. I'd 
take a rough guess and say that full recording of a person's mental 
experience in all external and internal channels would have to require 
hundreds or even thousands of times the bandwidth of Blu-ray. But even at 
what I'd think would be an extremely conservative estimate of a hundred 
times, we're up near two million terabytes (two exabytes). What's more, 
there appears to be no strain, no sign of running out of space at all, as 
if capacity was simply not an issue. This type of example makes me really 
question whether digital prosthetics are a real possibility at all - it 
looks to me strongly suggestive of a totally different way of recording 
information, or even of the possibility that recording and storage are the 
wrong metaphor entirely. 'Christian' in the above quora response says that 
he has little means of distinguishing a memory from a live experience, 
making for a very confusing mental life. This type of memory looks more 
like a kind of time travel than a recording. Perhaps this is still 
compatible with Bruno's version of comp - the universal subject inhabiting 
the pure space of Number - but it's more problematic for step one of the 
whole argument that leads to this vision, namely saying 'yes' to a digital 
brain.



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.