Memory Size

[Lardmeister]

Memory is getting smaller all the time,
64 gigabytes is about a square inch of silicon now!

Is it also getting shorter?

Are hard-drives doomed?

[Ancient Dragon]

>>Is it also getting shorter?
Yes -- the older you get the sorter your memory :)

>>Are hard-drives doomed?
Probably, but not in the near future. They need to replace with something for long-time storage.

[Lardmeister]

>>Is it also getting shorter?
Yes -- the older you get the sorter your memory :)

>>Are hard-drives doomed?
Probably, but not in the near future. They need to replace with something for long-time storage.

Thanks Ancient! The reference to a shorter memory was exactly that, the more folks are asked/bombarded to remember the less they seem to remember.

Can those new high capacity solid state flash drives in competition with mechanical hard-drives? I read that HP is producing a new notebook with a 32G flash drive instead of a HD.

[Ancient Dragon]

Thanks Ancient! The reference to a shorter memory was exactly that, the more folks are asked/bombarded to remember the less they seem to remember.

Actually that was not what I was talking about. Your memory naturally gets sorter as you age. Been there, done that :) But to answer your question, I doubt the increasing amount of information is causing any ill affects on the brain. Afterall we use very little of its power anyway.

Can those new high capacity solid state flash drives in competition with mechanical hard-drives? I read that HP is producing a new notebook with a 32G flash drive instead of a HD.

Sorry but I don't know a thing about it (or mayb I just forgot)

[joshSCH]

Actually that was not what I was talking about. Your memory naturally gets sorter as you age. Been there, done that :) But to answer your question, I doubt the increasing amount of information is causing any ill affects on the brain. Afterall we use very little of its power anyway.

Actually the urban legend that we only use 10% of our brains is false. I read somewhere that we actually utilize the majority of its potential.

Hmm.. your title is a bit confusing. Memory usually refers to RAM... and I seriously doubt hard drives will be commonly replaced by anything in the near future. We need something nearly infallible to store data, and hard drives can be safely connected inside the case without fear of loss of data (for the most part). Hard drives are usually quite sufficient for storing long-term data.. flash drives have pretty much taken over the role of floppies and cds.. an easy and quick way to transfer data between hard drives.

[Lardmeister]

Thanks joshSCH! I am thinking of hard drives as mechanical devices relying on high speed bearings and the lack of vibrations in its environment. Obviously, 32G solid state flash drives are produced already for HP to use in environments with lots of vibration and mechanical shock, like a notebook would experience.

I have not seen one, but assume they are much smaller and use less power than a HD.

[Ancient Dragon]

Actually the urban legend that we only use 10% of our brains is false. I read somewhere that we actually utilize the majority of its potential.
.

Not possible to use the majority of its potential because it has infinite potential so what's the majority of infinity?

To say "we use all of our brain all of the time" says nothing about the potential of human intelligence, creativity, and problem solving. Such a skeptical rebuttal of the vast potential of the human think machine implies that we have reached our limits of brain potential- probably the most harmful dead end notion of all. We haven't even gotten close.

Our frontal lobes have been culturally and socially lobotomized. At this stage of evolution, we are simply still Apes With Pencils.

[Lardmeister]

Sorry to wake you up Ancient! Physiologically you only have a limited number of neurons in your brain, so I don't think it will ever have infinite capacity!

It is true that the general puplic only uses 0.1% to 10% of the capacity to get by in life.

[joshSCH]

Not possible to use the majority of its potential because it has infinite potential so what's the majority of infinity?

Huh? Assuming that the human mind has infinite capabilities is ridiculous. We are imperfect beings, and as such, we are not capable of infinite understanding and knowledge.

# Humans use only 10% or less of their brain: Even though many mysteries of brain function persist, every part of the brain has a known function.[6][7][8]

* This misconception most likely arose from a misunderstanding (or misrepresentation in an advertisement) of neurological research in the late 1800s or early 1900s when researchers either discovered that only about 10% of the neurons in the brain are firing at any given time or announced that they had only mapped the functions of 10% of the brain up to that time (accounts differ on this point).
* Another possible origin of the misconception is that only 10% of the cells in the brain are neurons; the rest are glial cells that, despite being involved in learning, do not function in the same way that neurons do.
* If all of a person's neurons began firing at once, that person would not become smarter, but would instead suffer a seizure. In fact, studies have shown that the brains of more intelligent people are less active than the brains of less intelligent people when working on the same problems.
* Some New Age proponents propagate this belief by asserting that the "unused" ninety percent of the human brain is capable of exhibiting psychic powers and can be trained to perform psychokinesis and extra-sensory perception.

[Ancient Dragon]

If it were true that we have a limited amount of memory then at some point we would have to stop learning. One could say "I have learned everything possible to learn, so I can go have a beer now.". I doubt that point in or evolution will ever happen, consequently we have infinite capacity to learn.

[joshSCH]

If it were true that we have a limited amount of memory then at some point we would have to stop learning. One could say "I have learned everything possible to learn, so I can go have a beer now.". I doubt that point in or evolution will ever happen, consequently we have infinite capacity to learn.

No, you are obviously having a difficult time understanding. Humans are not perfect. We do not have an infinite capacity to learn. If we did then it would be possible to learn everything, which it obviously isn't. Look at it this way, humans can learn and develop knowledge. The graph of human knowledge with respect to time is an exponential similar to y=ln(x). Our knowledge will grow very quickly up until a point where the tangent has the greatest slope. Then, this graph will slow to a point in which knowledge is gained at a very small rate. Due to limitations of the brain, and physical limitations to humanity (we are not immortal) it is inevitable that we will one day not be capable of obtaining any more knowledge. Our limitations on knowledge is finite, but knowledge itself is infinite. Don't you see? There is more knowledge in the Universe than we have the capacity to understand.

[jasimp]

I think Ancient is saying that due to the fact we cannot learn everything, we have an infinite capacity to learn, becasue there is always something new we do not yet know.

[Infarction]

Back on the original topic... I've heard that the blocks of a solid state drive are good for like 10,000+ write operations, so they'll likely last a decently long time (longer than the two months it takes for your laptop to be outdated), and the power usage is a bit lower. Also, seek times are much shorter (since there isn't a mechanical factor), so reading data is really fast. Write speeds are slower, but still faster than hard disks I think...

[jwenting]

If it were true that we have a limited amount of memory then at some point we would have to stop learning. One could say "I have learned everything possible to learn, so I can go have a beer now.". I doubt that point in or evolution will ever happen, consequently we have infinite capacity to learn.

Uh, that point was reached in the 1800s when scientists were adamant that everything was known and all that needed to be done was write it all up.
They were of course proven wrong ;)

And an incapacity to ever fill something up doesn't mean its capacity is infinite. It just means the capacity is larger than will ever be needed. This may be effectively equivalent to infinity, but conceptually it's not.

[Dave Sinkula]

Uh, that point was reached in the 1800s when scientists were adamant that everything was known and all that needed to be done was write it all up.

No, no. It's time to close the patent office. ;)

[Infarction]

No, you are obviously having a difficult time understanding. Humans are not perfect. We do not have an infinite capacity to learn. If we did then it would be possible to learn everything, which it obviously isn't. Look at it this way, humans can learn and develop knowledge. The graph of human knowledge with respect to time is an exponential similar to y=ln(x)...

While I won't disagree with the model, I do disagree with the argument. True, one human cannot possibly learn everything. However, as a whole, the human race can, if possible and given enough time, record a near infinite amound of data. This will largely be boosted by specialization of education (and through that, research efforts). This way, while a single person's knowledge curve may plateau as they age, the combined sum of knowledge can still grow in a manner correlated with the size of the contributing population.

Taking this another step, with our recent efforts in combining knowledge (e.g. the Internet), it is now also very easy for humans to quickly amass informations and attempt to determine relationships between them, possibly creating new information. It is also possible for someone, I'll use myself as an example, who has little or no knowledge of a certain subject, say, the pre-cellular (aka plain old) telephone system to quickly find and digest some information on the subject. The information, being stored externally to my imperfect human brain, can then be discarded from my memory if no longer needed, but is still quite accessible in the event that it is needed again. Sort of like an OS paging system, we humans are reaching a point where we can utilize only the information we currently require while keeping the rest on top in an external form.

[joshSCH]

While I won't disagree with the model, I do disagree with the argument. True, one human cannot possibly learn everything. However, as a whole, the human race can, if possible and given enough time, record a near infinite amound of data. This will largely be boosted by specialization of education (and through that, research efforts). This way, while a single person's knowledge curve may plateau as they age, the combined sum of knowledge can still grow in a manner correlated with the size of the contributing population.

Taking this another step, with our recent efforts in combining knowledge (e.g. the Internet), it is now also very easy for humans to quickly amass informations and attempt to determine relationships between them, possibly creating new information. It is also possible for someone, I'll use myself as an example, who has little or no knowledge of a certain subject, say, the pre-cellular (aka plain old) telephone system to quickly find and digest some information on the subject. The information, being stored externally to my imperfect human brain, can then be discarded from my memory if no longer needed, but is still quite accessible in the event that it is needed again. Sort of like an OS paging system, we humans are reaching a point where we can utilize only the information we currently require while keeping the rest on top in an external form.

An interesting theory, but I still stand behind my original post. The following argument will explain my stance:

1.) There is infinite knowledge in the Universe
2.) We can divide this knowledge into different subjects (such as mathematics and physics)
3.) By definition, all of these subjects are infinite
4.) Humans are imperfect, and there is a limit to the total knowledge we as a race can acquire. (For example, we take a child from birth and teach him/her mathematics until death. He must learn basics first:algebra,geometry,calculus 1&2,differential equations,linear algebra,etc. Eventually we will acquire enough knowledge to keep a student in class from birth until death.. which leaves little room for the discovery of anymore concepts)

Conclusion: Thus, it follows that the imperfect human mind limits the human race to the amount of knowledge it can acquire.

Even with our technological advances, we will never be able to even record all the knowledge in the Universe. Your idea of a huge database-type paging file is still limited to the amount of knowledge that the human race can obtain. Also, keep in mind that I am assuming that the human race will eventually die out, as is logically induced. Given infinite time, of course any species can acquire infinite knowledge.

[scru]

For those who are determined human capacity to learn is finite, show me some hard evidence.

For those who are determined human capacity to learn is infinite, show me some hard evidence.

I may be wrong, and I really couldn't care less because I don't intend to test this scientifically, nor do I care for anyone who does, but just because it's not possible for the human to comprehend everything there is to know about the universe doesn't mean we do not have the capacity should we ever need to.

Not to strawman anybody or anything, but why do we have an appendix then?

Why do we have a little toe? (No...we can balance without them)

I'm not saying these parts will pitch in to help us understand "everything" (how would I know?), but they have no known uses, yet still exist in our bodies.

What I'm trying to say here, is there is the possibility that we, after all, do have the capacity even though we don't need it.

But we don't really know for sure, d we?

[MidiMagic]

The problem is that our long-term permanent memories are serial, like recording tape. The problem isn't that you can't remember something, but the rewindatory gap. That's the time it tales to find and retrieve the memory.

My memory can take 24 hours to complete a search cycle.

[DimaYasny]

I've been using electronic hard drives (as opposed to mechanical/magnetic ones) 11 years ago. they were 2-4Gigs, huge devices used where computational speeds were of essence. basically it's a huge rack of SDRAM with a redundant set of batteries to keep the memory up. Used on special equipment, like fighter jets and military vehicles

EDIT: oh yeah, and they cost up to half a mil each. Nowadays it's probably much less, both in size and in cost.

[Rashakil Fol]

The problem is that our long-term permanent memories are serial, like recording tape. The problem isn't that you can't remember something, but the rewindatory gap. That's the time it tales to find and retrieve the memory.

My memory can take 24 hours to complete a search cycle.

What the heck are you talking about? This is the most compressed load of balognial B.S. I have ever read in my life. It takes no longer to remember something that you've learned at one age than another; the freshness of a memory depends more on the emotional importance of it to you. Case in point: I remember my trip to the zoo from when I was six month old. I remember the experience of throwing a golf ball through one of my school's windows in second grade. I can't remember anything that happened in September, except for one trip I made. There's no "rewind cycle". Do you just make this stuff up? Your comments are a worse instantiation of arbitrarity than the drivel spewn by literature professors.

[joshSCH]

The problem is that our long-term permanent memories are serial, like recording tape. The problem isn't that you can't remember something, but the rewindatory gap. That's the time it tales to find and retrieve the memory.

My memory can take 24 hours to complete a search cycle.

WOW. r-r-really? Are you being serious?? "rewindatory gap"? Did you seriously make that up? Comparing human memory to that of a sequential-access tape drive is absolutely absurd! What made you post such idiocy? Simply because it takes you 24 hours to recall anything from memory doesn't mean that everyone else is a retard too. You post blatantly wrong information ALL THE TIME!!! PLEASE do research before posting, will you? After a few quick google searches I found:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recollection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory
http://homepage.mac.com/dtrapp/essays/memory.html

I suggest, if you are literate (which is now under some serious scrutiny) then READ those passages, and perhaps search for REAL data. I don't know if you just live in your own little world or what.. but seriously dude, all you contribute to these forums is stupidity. You should definitely rethink posting.. or at least gain a little bit of intellect and real knowledge..

[Rashakil Fol]

PLEASE do research before posting, will you? After a few quick google searches I found:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recollection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory
http://homepage.mac.com/dtrapp/essays/memory.html

Oh yeah, like Wikipedia and some random homepage is a reliable source... or anybody. Go on. Keep repeating what others say and pretending that you're an expert.

[joshSCH]

hahaa.. I said a 'quick' google search. It is not me trying to make the point.. All I'm saying is that I found strong evidence against his post within fractions of a second.. imagine what one could find if they actually did the research (*cough* midimagic *cough*)

[DimaYasny]

absurd stuff there. human memory isn't sequential, it's recursively associative

[scru]

absurd stuff there. human memory isn't sequential, it's recursively associative

Lol ignore them.

I've noticed they like to play smart and put down others (rather severely too) to feel that way.

[Rashakil Fol]

I've noticed they like to play smart and put down others (rather severely too) to feel that way.

No... I just have a visceral reaction to pseudo-scientific statements that have no grounding in fact.

[Ancient Dragon]

Sorry to wake you up Ancient! Physiologically you only have a limited number of neurons in your brain, so I don't think it will ever have infinite capacity!

I think you need to study more. According to this the bran has infinite capacity to produce new neurons. I'm in no way any expert in human biology (I flunked it in HS :) ) I also saw a documentary film on the History channel (I think) the other day about doctors surgecally separating twins who were joined at the head and shared a common brain. Over several surgeries in several months they gradually cut the brain in half. After each surgery each half was able to generate new neurons to replace those that had been lost to the division. Eventually they were able to completly sever the brain in two and also cut the crainium as well. Although they had to relearn how to do everything that children normally learn as an infant the two children are today leading near normal lives.

there is a limit to the total knowledge we as a race can acquire. (For example, we take a child from birth and teach him/her mathematics until death. He must learn basics first:algebra,geometry,calculus 1&2,differential equations,linear algebra,etc. Eventually we will acquire enough knowledge to keep a student in class from birth until death.. which leaves little room for the discovery of anymore concepts)

Ridiculous! That is hardly proof that there is an upper limit to the amount of information that the human brain can hold. Actually I doubt anyone knows for sure whether there is such a limit or not because nobody has ever approached the limit, if there is one.

[joshSCH]

I think you need to study more. According to this the bran has infinite capacity to produce new neurons. I'm in no way any expert in human biology (I flunked it in HS :) ) I also saw a documentary film on the History channel (I think) the other day about doctors surgecally separating twins who were joined at the head and shared a common brain. Over several surgeries in several months they gradually cut the brain in half. After each surgery each half was able to generate new neurons to replace those that had been lost to the division. Eventually they were able to completly sever the brain in two and also cut the crainium as well. Although they had to relearn how to do everything that children normally learn as an infant the two children are today leading near normal lives.

Ridiculous! That is hardly proof that there is an upper limit to the amount of information that the human brain can hold. Actually I doubt anyone knows for sure whether there is such a limit or not because nobody has ever approached the limit, if there is one.

Infinite capacity to produce neurons? The same is true for many other things, including producing blood.. The overall total neurons has absolutely nothing to do with acquiring knowledge.. I believe you are confusing the mind with the brain.. these are two separate entities.

Now on to the limit of knowledge... how does my example not show a definite limit in the acquisition of knowledge?? We are imperfect beings! We are not capable of infinite anything! Infinity implies a certain amount of perfection.. which we inherently lack. As I said in my example, suppose an individual attends school for the rest of his life just to learn the amount of knowledge that we have so far acquired in a specific field.. if that is true, then he has no time to come up with new ideas/concepts. It's the exponential y=ln(x).. We gain a ton of knowledge very quickly (technological and industrial revolutions), but then the speed at which we gain knowledge slows considerably... implying a limit to knowledge...

If you still can't understand that...
1. Knowledge is infinite
2. Humanity is finite

Time is our biggest problem.. We will not live forever.. our race will one day cease to exist.. thus, we can not acquire an infinite amount of knowledge in a finite amount of time.

[ndeniche]

Not possible to use the majority of its potential because it has infinite potential so what's the majority of infinity?

so, if it _is_ infinite, just how much is it 10% of infinity?