Plugging into the Internet with the Brain

[lixluke]

Is it true that we can only access information that is stored in our brain?
Information is gathered through the senses and thought process. Then stored in the brain.

Many believe that there is an information sphere that stores all possible information in the universe. And that we can use our brain like an antenna to access the universal information. I think Thomas Edison believed it.

Is it possible that all information is stored in the universe, and the brain is capable of accessing this information by somehow plugging into it?

Therefore, everything we know is not stored only in our brain because we can plug into a universal sphere to access infinite information.

 

[Communist Hamster]

Sounds like a hive mind theory to me.

 

[Avatar]

hive mind?...
zergs!! yay, cool skill is a zergling! kill him!

 

[Squeak22]

Build the pillboxes so the zergling rush doesn't get us!

 

[Avatar]

Yeah.. this reminds me of

 

[Stryder]

If you were to listen to certain types of Neurologist, they would suggest that the brain communicates by Chemical switches and therefore could not communicate with the Universe. However if you were to throw a Quantum Mechanic into the discussion, they would probably suggest how the nature of the universe is and insist that the Chemistry could be manipulated by sub-atomic reactions caused by doppler interaction (Relative communication like the EPR Paradox).

To cut the discussion between such people short, their would probably be an agreement that the natural state of the human mind and the universe means that we can't naturally tap into a wealth of information, however Artificially through the use of equipment and evolution of technology, A system could be devised to allow a person to access a Thesaurus, Dictionary, Encyclopeadia or Even the internet which in turn contains the sum of mankinds knowledge.

"With a Head the size of a planet..." (Sub-statement made by Marvin from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams. At least now people should understand it meant that his Artificial intelligence was the Sum of a planets technology)

 

[Rick]

if brain produces sufficient elctro-magnetic field i guess....

 

[kmguru]

Our DNA has say 3,000,000,000 base pairs. Our useful base pairs are 150,000,000. That means we have information that we do not know what they do....I am sure the planet has similar information that tells the planet when to change water, air, ozone, rain, snow etc...but I do not think, we were designed in such a short few million years to be equiped with receivers to collect information by means other than our basic senses, which are not very reliable.

Perhaps another million years of evolution...we could have access to more...like Vorlons?

 

[Stryder]

I think that some of that "Junk DNA" is generated through aging, the understanding that a little piece of the original code you have from birth is lost with every iteration after a certain point. Kind of like what they've tried with Disposable Rental DVD's that can only be watched so many times before they degrade.

 

[SkinWalker]

Many believe that there is an information sphere that stores all possible information in the universe. And that we can use our brain like an antenna to access the universal information.

A lot of people believe in a lot of crazy stuff. Without any evidence to suggest such a connection, it remains a fantasy of science fiction. A fun one to speculate on, but fantasy nonetheless.

I think Thomas Edison believed it.

Perhaps he did. Do you have a citation that the rest of us can follow and read for ourselves?

Is it possible that all information is stored in the universe, and the brain is capable of accessing this information by somehow plugging into it?

Of course it's possible, but there is no evidence that brains of organisms are capable of such connections in nature nor is there evidence to suggest that such a repository exists. If one did, what would have created it and deposited the information and for what purpose? Answers we can speculate on for sure, but nothing observed in nature suggests such a thing actually exists.

Therefore, everything we know is not stored only in our brain because we can plug into a universal sphere to access infinite information.

There are more than 10¹¹ neurons in the average human brain. Add in the dendrites and the number of neural connections is around 10¹⁴.

There are almost a hundred times more atoms in just one speck of salt. If the number of elementary particles in the universe is over 10⁸⁰, how could one brain come close to even truly knowing a grain of salt. "Infinite information" does us no good. Humans need the relative bits in order to function. The brain applies ontological templates and interprets patterns as short-cuts to storing information.

 

[lixluke]

Perhaps he did. Do you have a citation that the rest of us can follow and read for ourselves?

No I don't. Why would I?

 

[Squeak22]

No I don't. Why would I?

*claps* Good job on making sure you are never taken seriously in these forums again.

Skinwalker was simply asking you to back up your assertions with some documentation.

This is a science forum, not someplace where anyone can post any crazy idea and expect everyone to go.... "ooooo wow I'm sure that's correct!" You have to have SOMETHING to back it all up.

 

[Clockwood]

Lets say there is no great repository of knowledge. Could we, or a billion years worth of our descendants, ever create one ourselves? Perhaps not infinite, but perhaps transfinite... immeasurably huge and beyond the comprehension of any one individual.

 

[Stryder]

[OOT]
Personal Ad Hom's, or Bigotry Attacks shouldn't be tolerated.

Notibly with every Topic on the forums people have their own independant views and occasionally those views conflict enough for people to become upset, however you should all realise that it's a Viscious circle in the sense that as soon as you resort to name calling the fur tends to fly.

This then causes the Moderators on the forums to be tested and of course they too end up under attack from trying to "Peace Keep".

I'm not asking everyone to like each other or to agree with each other, just that they try to refrain from calling each other names (i.e. "You bunch of idiots") since name calling serves no real intelligent purpose.

 

[SkinWalker]

No I don't. Why would I?

Just curious. I've read a bit on Eddison and don't remember such a suggestion. I also couldn't find anything remotely similar in a google search.

 

[one_raven]

A lot of people believe in a lot of crazy stuff. Without any evidence to suggest such a connection, it remains a fantasy of science fiction. A fun one to speculate on, but fantasy nonetheless.

I'm curious what you make of this:

In the meantime, the puzzles about memory have grown even stranger. This part of our story will take us to one of the most controversial frontiers of current science, although it actually starts back in 1920 when W. McDougall, a biologist at Harvard, began an experiment to see if animals (in this case white rats) could inherit learning. The procedure was to teach the rats a simple task (avoiding a lighted exit), record how fast they learned, breed another generation, teach them the same task, and see how their rate of learning compared with their elders. He carried the experiment through 34 generations and found that, indeed, each generation learned faster in flat contradiction to the usual Darwinian assumptions about heredity. Such a result naturally raised controversy, and similar experiments were run to prove or disprove the result. The last of these was done by W.E. Agar at Melbourne over a period of 20 years ending in 1954. Using the same general breed of rats, he found the same pattern of results that McDougall had but in addition he found that untrained rats used as a control group also learned faster in each new generation. (Curiously, he also found that his first generation of rats started at the same rate of learning as McDougall's last generation.) No one had a good explanation for why both trained and untrained should be learning faster, but since this result did not support the idea that learning was inherited, the biology community breathed a sigh of relief and considered the matter closed.

Source

Please don't instantly discount it because Sheldrake is involved with the paper.
I am asking about a very specific party of the paper that has nothing to do with Sheldrake.
I am curious what you think of it.
Most people I talk to either never heard of the experiements of discount them without reason.
I am looking for a valid refutation of them.

 

[Markquis]

if brain produces sufficient elctro-magnetic field i guess....

there is no guessing to this.. okay, guess this!. the functional operation of (EMP) meaning., electromagnetic pluse awakens the creative abilty.

 

[kmguru]

I am curious what you think of it.

That is pure B.S. The latest theory of intelligence can be understood from Jeff Hawkings research. Since the brain has an ability to predict, it re-enforces the theory that memories are based on fractral science. That is data can be severely compressed and decompressed based on fractal mathematics. So, minor damage to one part can be recovered using he predictive structure of the brain.

I do belive that DNA does change over the life of a person (otherwise you wont get cancer or get old), but tranfer of memory a la Fifth Element is SF.

 

[Markquis]

do you really understand the human esp ability to control matter ?.. or are you still reading book.. however, memories only explanes the past life history of self-awareness.. who are you? stop reading boook and start searching within self.

 

[one_raven]

That is pure B.S.

That's the kind of meaningless response I usually get.
Do you think the scientists involved in the original experiemnts were lying? What do you have to back that up?
Do you think that they misinterpreted the data? What do you have to back that up?
What, specifically, do you have to refite it and support your assertion that it is "pure B.S."?

Without something to back your statements up, can you see how I can't see any more reason to accept them than crackpots like Sheldrake who postulate "Morphogenic Fields"?

Shoud I just take it on your hunch that it is "pure B.S." rather than assume you are being closed-minded and not thinking critically?
Why?