most dense object?

Procop....you are an abstract master...oh, yes you are...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

can I

may I be the abstract mistress?
or the abstract's mistress?
will the queen get upset?

-Mysterious Ducchess of Verbosity

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

no sweat, susan....you certainly may be the abstract queen.....no, problemo... *presents royal (even if theoretical) scepter to susan*

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

procop:

no, YOU are confusing things again.

For the FOURTH time, I will ask you, back up what you said.

you claimed the brain to be "information dense" or what not, now the burden of proof lies upon you.

Its not anyone elses job to prove you wrong until you have some evidence to support your statement, to which so far you have provided none.

 

I think ProCop's brain may be the densest of all.

- Warren

 

Re

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

n Radioactive Waves

If proving me wrong is not the task of anyone else, who's job is it then? Mine? You must be kidding! (...or... you are a lawyer?)

 

Well before i gave the physical figure for the brain information cycle, it was 10 to the 58th power. written 10*58

one Factor that was not included in that figure was the time cycle, and it with out doubt that time plays a role in the brain capcity, brain activity of nerons operates in the 1 milli second range.
given this the factore of the brain has increased per capcity
and the calculation for sucs is written ;
10*58th x 1,000 = 10 *61( 10 * 62)

this means that the brain can make connection to the order of 10 to the 62nd power per second.

Can someone tell me what that would be in giga bytes, or computer memoary. 10*61st power per second.

DWAYNE D.L.RABON

 

Memory is not measured in units of s^-1 you idiot.

- Warren

 

Memory for humans and animal life forms would as the stimulas of life is a matter of patterns, of neroelectric current per milli or micro second.
To much nerrual activity wouild result in a ceziure, however those that use their brain effectively and have good neron and axion melinen sheaths can use more of the brain with out such difficulties.
So then the brain can make 10^61 connects a second, i am sure there are variables, simply most people use only 10 % of the brain in active function, and 1 % is equal to concious,
I just asked how that would work out in memoary of a computure, how many giga bytes was that, does a computer make that many connection per second.
in general the figures given are averages, the active function of 1% of the brain allows for the processing of 10^61 connection per second.

whats the deal with say ing that bits dont convert to memory, bits contain how many electrical singals, how many signal can it preform before over heating, disfunction, it the brain preforms 10^61 connections per second how many bits con a comptuer run per second. so then how does that covert in to giga bits.

DWAYNE D.L.RABON

 

These questions don't even make sense. You're a delusional nutball.

- Warren

 

ok you guys are way beyond my league.

 

Chroot/warren I have read enough of your post to know for a fact that you are a loser, and fanatic.
Plainly it seems that you never provide any reasonable information relative to any of your post.
like i said before it would seem that your parents abused you and have damaged your brain stem. prehaps your mother was a drunk, or your father a herion addict, maybe they where inbred, i Don't know but if your parents are decsent you must be a embarrasment.
DWAYNE D.L.RABON

 

Nanny nanny boo boo!!

- Warren

 

procrap:

I already proved you wrong enough, by asking you (at least 4 times if memory serves correct) to provide some kind of backing support to your statement. I posed the question - "how do we know the brain is any denser than anything else?"

You see, for your logic to work, (where someone else needs to prove you wrong) you must first have a certain amount of truth in there to be considered valid. You made a statement, which I asked you to back up. You did not write a thesis that you then sent to sciforums to be reviewed by you "colleagues".


So basicly it comes down to you thinking you can make any statement nd it will be valid until proven false. HA!


Theres a parralel sciforums comunity inside a blackhole, and a clone of prifrey lives inside the center of jupiter.
We all know this is true of course, because procop hasn't proved me wrong here.

 

Cells don't work like this. Electrical information between neurons is binary. There is a certain voltage necessary for a neuron to activate; any voltage below the threshold voltage results in no cellular operation and any voltage above the threshold is wasted. Cells can't use varying amounts of potential to convey different meanings - they are simply either activated or inactive.

But none of that really matters, since density is not a function of information!Unless, of course, you're using some contrived, non-standard definition of density.

 

agreed!

and procop:

no , its your job to prove yourself right, which you have not come anywhere close to even attempting. (see previous post of mine

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

 

And how about an information-theoretic view?

The most information-dense string is the random string. Let's imagine that we represent everything in binary, so each bit in a string can be either zero or one. A random string is one in which every bit is wholly independent of every other bit. There is no redundancy or pattern in the data. The random string is pure, 100% information. There is less information in, for example, a string of english text. There are rules of letter order, frequency, and a general structure. The bit string representing a bit of english text is less than 100% pure information. In fact, it's only about 20% pure information. The more structure you impart upon the string, the less pure information it will contain.

Let's extrapolate this to a mass of carbohydrates and water molecules and what-not: the stuff that make up the brain. The brain weighs about three pounds; so let's take three pounds of "brain raw material" and consider its information density. This three pound mass of raw material has its chemicals in a disarray, with no order, structure, or pattern. The position, orientation, etc., are all random. It's just like the random bit string -- it's 100% pure information. There is no way to represent the disarrayed mass of three pounds of raw material more simply than listing the characteristics of every single particle.

As the brain grows (say, from a zygote) from raw materials into a structured array of cells and nuclei and microtubules and what-not, it is actually decreasing in information content. The structure and patterns mean that you no longer have to describe every particle in the brain. If you were to represent all the characteristics of every particle as a string of bits, you could compress the string by taking advantage of the redundancy and patterns. The brain has a lower information content than the random soup from which it is formed.

Futhermore, as the brain learns things, it becomes more and more structured. Neuronal connections become stronger, more tightly bound, and less random. The adult, highly educated brain actually contains LESS information than the soup of raw material from which it formed.

The more you learn, the less information your brain contains.

- Warren

 

so by "random string", you mean it cant be compressed?

 

Yes, a random string cannot be compressed. Every bit is independent of every other bit; there is no pattern or structure to compress. The only way to represent a random string is to provide every bit of it.

- Warren

 

Re:chroot

You are mixing things up here: without applying the inteligence which recognises string of English text as such the English string differs in no way from the random string. For a non English speaker the strings are the same. The same applies to the DvDs in your head. Without a DvD player it is pure info. Pease try to concetrate on what you are writing.

I see you have accepted this thesis which I proposed at "The Development of Knowledge" here (at Sciforum). (In your entry there you called me nutts for stating what you now propose to be your opinion.)