Human Brain may be 100 Times More Powerful than Previously Believed

a reply to: TarzanBeta

Show me in the original paper where they equate analogue with feeling and digital with thinking.

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: DarkvsLight29
Cool thread and I've always fought the human brain was way more powerful than we think.

I was watching the film Lucy (Scarlet Johansson) and was about how the human brain would/could function with using more than 10% even 100% and it's possible we could interact with everything around us including time it's self..Now that's a bit far out the box but giving all the time needed it's possible.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: FamCore

The fact that we only use 10% of our brains too. Monkeys have similar brains and only use 5%, but that extra 5 percent is incomprehensible to a monkey. Imagine a species that uses 20? 30?

This is a myth. We use 100% of our brains, just not at the same time (unless you're having a seizure).

Fair enough, but if we used 100% all the time then we'd probably be smarter than we are now or Least take in more information than before.

originally posted by: DarkvsLight29

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: DarkvsLight29
Cool thread and I've always fought the human brain was way more powerful than we think.

I was watching the film Lucy (Scarlet Johansson) and was about how the human brain would/could function with using more than 10% even 100% and it's possible we could interact with everything around us including time it's self..Now that's a bit far out the box but giving all the time needed it's possible.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: FamCore

The fact that we only use 10% of our brains too. Monkeys have similar brains and only use 5%, but that extra 5 percent is incomprehensible to a monkey. Imagine a species that uses 20? 30?

This is a myth. We use 100% of our brains, just not at the same time (unless you're having a seizure).

Fair enough, but if we used 100% all the time then we'd probably be smarter than we are now or Least take in more information than before.

Some people do use 100% of their brains sometimes. Unfortunately, the the result is an epileptic seizure.

Imo, the reason we only use so little 'brain power' is the rest is storage space, saving up a lifetime of memories, if we live that long.

Anyway, computers themselves are designed like this, active memory space is small compared to hard storage space in the drive.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: TarzanBeta

Show me in the original paper where they equate analogue with feeling and digital with thinking.

"They"?

I have my own personal theory that feeling (which is a completely misunderstood function - I don't mean personal base emotions and/or basic touching feeling sensation only) is actually the thinking function in hyperdrive.

But if you are interested in learning about cognitive functions as researched through the lens of neuroscience, there are plenty of papers for you to choose from. A good search will do.

But as an example, some people can simply "know" something very quickly, whose knowing is more like an analog discovering, wherein the "feelers" are constantly grabbing information and processing it - and some others must take the time to actively process what they experience, which we know from experience works as a "yes" and "no" system; a bit like multiple choice wherein the answer is often determined through a process of elimination.

"Feeling" doesn't need the multiple choice system. It believes in its own process.

For example, I consider the primary feeler as someone with vision and the primary thinker as someone without vision. There is a face that must be described. The one with eyes can immediately know; but the one that is blind must use their hand on every part of the face and ask, "Large nose? Yes or no. Dimples when smiling? Yes or no."

In relation to the OP, the dendrites seem to perform using both analog and digital functions, whereas it was not known whether the sequences were more than digital.

And because it is possible that the brain is 100 times more powerful, albeit, an abstract number really in this case, and their determination of this number has to do with the dendrite's function along with its apparently analog nature, it is not a far leap for me to say that, "this may yet prove the superiority of the feeling function, which is analog in nature, to the thinking function, which is digital in nature."

Maybe that helps you understand from where I derive my statement.

Again as for cognitive functions, there is a plethora of work out there for you to discover... And then you can come to your own ideas.

a reply to: TarzanBeta

So that's a "no, I can't" then. K.

a reply to: FamCore

I think our brains also have some form of quantum activity at play that probobly directly relates to our consciousness.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: TarzanBeta

So that's a "no, I can't" then. K.

If you only ever read without discerning patterns and having ideas of your own, how will you enrich yourself with the knowledge available?

The researchers of the paper which the article of the OP addresses think more like me and less like you; you won't acquire new information without having ideas yourself. I think that demeans the authors and it does not appreciate them. For what purpose is there to share new knowledge if it is simply to be stored, but not acquired; to be heard, but not applied?

a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

That fact is a myth and widely perpetuated urban legend.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: GetHyped
This is a myth. We use 100% of our brains, just not at the same time (unless you're having a seizure).

I don't think it's a myth. I think it was just a misconception.

Our brain is always running 100%. But we can only use or control 10%. The 90% that we can't control are things like vision, senses, and all other natural functions. I call it "automatic" mode. The 10% that we control (you can call it 'manual mode') are our general body movement, thought process, emotions, etc.

If we were able to use 100% of our brain, we'd be able to control every aspect of it; like perhaps our own heartbeat for example.
But using/controlling 100% is pretty tough. You'd have to be very good at multi-tasking!

That is the way I see it at least.

originally posted by: Kuroodo

originally posted by: GetHyped
This is a myth. We use 100% of our brains, just not at the same time (unless you're having a seizure).

I don't think it's a myth. I think it was just a misconception.

Our brain is always running 100%. But we can only use or control 10%. The 90% that we can't control are things like vision, senses, and all other natural functions. I call it "automatic" mode. The 10% that we control (you can call it 'manual mode') are our general body movement, thought process, emotions, etc.

If we were able to use 100% of our brain, we'd be able to control every aspect of it; like perhaps our own heartbeat for example.
But using/controlling 100% is pretty tough. You'd have to be very good at multi-tasking!

That is the way I see it at least.

In my mind, we shouldn't strive to actively access all of the brain's functions, it would slow us down. We should simply acknowledge and allow and trust those functions. Not everything we need or do must be always "'conscious". When you realize something through a process other than active thought, put it to the test. But be careful not to arbitrarily put random things to the test. Make sure it's something which you seem to have a seemingly irrational conviction for - you may find the conviction is not irrational.

The brain does a lot in the background; and it really should stay that way.

ETA I forgot to star the post I quoted here. Fixed, ha.

a reply to: TarzanBeta

Well said!

Studying artificial neural networks I kept up on brain research. Lots of boring stuff about sodium and potassium channels, dyed neuron dissection, traumatic brain injuries, synesthesia, etc.

One thing quickly dawned on me. There are many specialized areas in the brain that are all synchronized together through alpha-, beta-, delta-, and theta-waves, a sea of hormones and amino acids, and there is thought to be 100 billion of them!

I knew then we have barely scratched the surface of research. That and a mediocre GRE score in math (of all things! Math minor! Idiot son I am...) put the notion of AI to some future date. Feed forward ANNs have come a long way but are not even close to what a human is capable of doing! The brain is a wonderful organ. It seems that its only function is to take signals and process them. ANN do one task, like vision, only. The brain tries to make sense out of ANY signal presented.

And now they realized that it is all more interactive than previously thought. I am not surprised! The brain is pretty sophisticated!

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: FamCore

The fact that we only use 10% of our brains too...

Though when researching this fact, it is consistently reported to be a fake statistic from the turn of last century. Modern research shows that 100% of the brain is used, though not necessarily all at the same time.

a reply to: Kuroodo

Our brain is always running 100%. But we can only use or control 10%. The 90% that we can't control are things like vision, senses, and all other natural functions.

Hw do we account for the size of a bumble bees brain; much smaller, including all those functions, plus the ability to fly?

Or an ant, its brain is the size of a pinhead but can run on six legs, has antenna and multiple mouthparts?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Kuroodo

Our brain is always running 100%. But we can only use or control 10%. The 90% that we can't control are things like vision, senses, and all other natural functions.

Hw do we account for the size of a bumble bees brain; much smaller, including all those functions, plus the ability to fly?

Or an ant, its brain is the size of a pinhead but can run on six legs, has antenna and multiple mouthparts?

They have far less need to regulate as many unconscious and conscious functions as others do. Their lives are extremely simple. One assumes that other-than-human traits must be more complicated. I'm not so sure about that. As well, I'm not sold on the idea that the size of the brain itself determines its efficiency level. I'm also not convinced that we know everything about any given creature's make-up. Has it been determined whether an ant has 6 separate brains for its legs as octopi have 8 separate brains for each of their tentacles? I think "brains" may be an exaggeration which is commonly used to describe a large collection of neuro-fibers, but would we even know if we didn't look? 6 tiny neuro-fiber networks much smaller than a pinhead might be difficult to locate and recognize.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Kuroodo

Our brain is always running 100%. But we can only use or control 10%. The 90% that we can't control are things like vision, senses, and all other natural functions.

Hw do we account for the size of a bumble bees brain; much smaller, including all those functions, plus the ability to fly?

Or an ant, its brain is the size of a pinhead but can run on six legs, has antenna and multiple mouthparts?

From my understanding insect nervous systems are more specialized. So you could say that they are using the few neurons they've got more effectively.

Their memory capacity is extremely limited too. I think bees can remember about six separate locations for example.

a reply to: FamCore

Wagner had earned his PhD working with Schnitzer, who develops pioneering methods for imaging neuronal activity in fruit flies, mice and other living animals. One method, called two-photon calcium imaging, had the resolution Wagner needed to study mouse granule cells in action.

In order to study motor control, the team had to get the mice to move. In this case, mice received sugar water about a second after pushing a little lever. While the mice pushed levers and received their rewards, Wagner recorded activity in each mouse’s granule cells, expecting to find that that activity in those cells would be related to planning and executing arm movements.

And to some extent he was right – some granule cells did fire when the animals moved. But other granule cells fired when the mice were waiting for their sugary rewards. And when Wagner sneakily took away their rewards, still other granule cells fired.

“It was actually a side observation, that, wow, they actually respond to reward,” Luo said.

Stanford.edu, news, March 20, 2017 - Stanford scientists find a previously unknown role for the cerebellum.

A strange coincidence! Another realization about brain complexity! The photo at the story shows the region of the mouse cerebellum lit up in green when getting the reward. They did not even know this region did this! The conventional thinking, "Oh, that? That is just motor control..." and would have left it at that.

The wonders continue!

a reply to: TarzanBeta

They have far less need to regulate as many unconscious and conscious functions as others do. Their lives are extremely simple.

What was that you were saying about ants leading simple lives?

Leaf cutter ant nest uncovered

Honey bee colonies, termite mounds, too.

a reply to: moebius

Their memory capacity is extremely limited too. I think bees can remember about six separate locations for example.

They live shorter loves compared to ours. From their perspective though, it might seem as long as ours.

Like dogs for instance, they live twelve, fourteen of our years, but over a hundred in 'dog years'.