Taking into consideration the way the brain controles the entire body and its functions,should the capabilities of the Human Brain were to be measured,in terms of Gigabites or whatever is used to measure the capability or capacity of a computer how much will it contain or measure?\n\neg. FLOPPY DISK 1.44 MB    HUMAN BRAIN ?
138061
Great question that has been raised in many a bio-psych class.  Our brain is much more adaptable and maleable than a computer. I would love to be able to "delete" some of my memories and would definately love to organize my thoughts into "file folders" but our brain does not do that.  We are unable to control/alt/delete either.  \n\nThe human brain is amazing and I don't believe we know everything that it is capable of.  \n\nGood luck on this fun question and discussion!
520446
Others have wondered whether or not downloading the contents of one's brain into an ultra-high-capacity chip would allow for the continuation of the consciousness. Arthur C. Clarke seems to think so. I'm not so sure, but it is an interesting Q.
675566
to understand electricity work you need about how bits & byte works.\n\nIf you have used a computer for more than five minutes, then you have heard the words bits and bytes. Both RAM and hard disk capacities are measured in bytes, as are file sizes when you examine them in a file viewer. \nYou might hear an advertisement that says, "This computer has a 32-bit Pentium processor with 64 megabytes of RAM and 2.1 gigabytes of hard disk space." And many HowStuffWorks articles talk about bytes (for example, How CDs Work). In this article, we will discuss bits and bytes so that you have a complete understanding. \n\nDecimal Numbers\nThe easiest way to understand bits is to compare them to something you know: digits. A digit is a single place that can hold numerical values between 0 and 9. Digits are normally combined together in groups to create larger numbers. For example, 6,357 has four digits. It is understood that in the number 6,357, the 7 is filling the "1s place," while the 5 is filling the 10s place, the 3 is filling the 100s place and the 6 is filling the 1,000s place. So you could express things this way if you wanted to be explicit: \n\n(6 * 1000) + (3 * 100) + (5 * 10) + (7 * 1) = 6000 + 300 + 50 + 7 = 6357 \nAnother way to express it would be to use powers of 10. Assuming that we are going to represent the concept of "raised to the power of" with the "^" symbol (so "10 squared" is written as "10^2"), another way to express it is like this: \n\n\n(6 * 10^3) + (3 * 10^2) + (5 * 10^1) + (7 * 10^0) = 6000 + 300 + 50 + 7 = 6357 \nWhat you can see from this expression is that each digit is a placeholder for the next higher power of 10, starting in the first digit with 10 raised to the power of zero. \n\nThat should all feel pretty comfortable -- we work with decimal digits every day. The neat thing about number systems is that there is nothing that forces you to have 10 different values in a digit. Our base-10 number system likely grew up because we have 10 fingers, but if we happened to evolve to have eight fingers instead, we would probably have a base-8 number system. You can have base-anything number systems. In fact, there are lots of good reasons to use different bases in different situations. \n\n\nBits\nComputers happen to operate using the base-2 number system, also known as the binary number system (just like the base-10 number system is known as the decimal number system). The reason computers use the base-2 system is because it makes it a lot easier to implement them with current electronic technology. You could wire up and build computers that operate in base-10, but they would be fiendishly expensive right now. On the other hand, base-2 computers are relatively cheap. \nSo computers use binary numbers, and therefore use binary digits in place of decimal digits. The word bit is a shortening of the words "Binary digIT." Whereas decimal digits have 10 possible values ranging from 0 to 9, bits have only two possible values: 0 and 1. Therefore, a binary number is composed of only 0s and 1s, like this: 1011. How do you figure out what the value of the binary number 1011 is? You do it in the same way we did it above for 6357, but you use a base of 2 instead of a base of 10. So: \n\n\n(1 * 2^3) + (0 * 2^2) + (1 * 2^1) + (1 * 2^0) = 8 + 0 + 2 + 1 = 11 \nYou can see that in binary numbers, each bit holds the value of increasing powers of 2. That makes counting in binary pretty easy. Starting at zero and going through 20, counting in decimal and binary looks like this: \n\n 0 =     0\n 1 =     1\n 2 =    10\n 3 =    11\n 4 =   100\n 5 =   101\n 6 =   110\n 7 =   111\n 8 =  1000\n 9 =  1001\n10 =  1010\n11 =  1011\n12 =  1100\n13 =  1101\n14 =  1110\n15 =  1111\n16 = 10000\n17 = 10001\n18 = 10010\n19 = 10011\n20 = 10100\n\nWhen you look at this sequence, 0 and 1 are the same for decimal and binary number systems. At the number 2, you see carrying first tak
238103
Sure. Where is your mind located? \n\nI know we can read electrical brainwave activity as well as use a variety of machines to detect chemical changes in the brain, but when you think a thought (such as a day at the beach) where is that image in your mind actually located?\n\nThe most recent scientific theories treat such notions as simply "ghosts in the machine", arguments that are secondary to the electro-chemical function of the brain. I disagree.\n\nThe only way to prove a thought exists is (currently) in the eye of the beholder. To everyone else (in spite of our machines) it does not exist.\n\nIf our everyday thoughts are non-locational, yet exist then we have a very personal and immediate proof of the non-location nature (matrix nature) of the universe.\n\nLife is a dream. Our bodies are an illusion, only our thoughts and awareness are real.
63916
You measure memory in computers with MB and GB because B = bytes = binary coding.  The human brain is not binary, so you cannot do the same with the human brain.\n\nIt's like trying to measure the information content of a street by counting lines, lanes, dots, and signs.  It's meaningless.\n\nI've said it before, but everyone's so enamored with the notion of parallels between human intellect and computers that they all just ignore it.
208290
You're referring to mind over matter and/or biofeedback. Anything is possible when it comes to the mind and body. Even science doesn't know our true potential yet. The smartest of humans only ever use approximately 30% of their total brain power. There is so much untapped power in our minds that it will never be assessed in out lifetime.
314272
EDIT: Half of my answer didn't post for some reason.\n\nScientists have been studying this for years, but never have found an answer.\n\nWhen I spoke to a deaf woman about this idea, this is what she said: "When I think about what I am going to say, I think about it in sign and I sometimes sign in my sleep.  However, when I read something (because there is no written version of sign language) I think about it in English.  Concepts are created visually more often than in English."\n\nFor an actual study, when presented with a stimulus, the visual and language areas of the brain become active, whereas in a hearing person, the auditory and language areas of the brain become active.  While they are processed differently, the language area of the brain is used at all times.\n\nThe only other help I can offer is a study on Genie, a girl who was locked up and unsocialized until about the age of twelve.  While she was able to be somewhat rehabilitated and learn some basic vocabulary, she never figured out how to put complex sentences together, which was thought to show she was not capable of complex thought.  However, the data was compromised because it was thought that she may be mentally challenged.
411652
It's about the average weight of a human brain.
423750
Great question. \n\nYour analogy to man-made devices is somewhat of a backwards take on things, as most machinery is actually made to mimic living things.  Nevertheless, machines or beings, both are designed to take some form of energy from the surrounding environment, and convert it into work.\n\nIn that regard, the brain is very much like a computer that controls the body, but it has one amazing difference that artificial intelligence can't approach (yet.)  The ability to recognize, store and relate patterns to one another.  This is how people are able to do simple things that are beyond the most powerful computers. \n\nWhile our brains do function in a (sort of) binary way, with the firing of neurons occurring or not occurring, they also are able to instantly interconnect experiences (which are just patterns of neurons that fire in a prescribed way based on the chemical triggers) to form new patterns which didn't exist beforehand.  In other words, WE LEARN. What's more amazing is that we can relate things INSTANTLY.  Think about how you can recall a memory from an hour ago, yesterday, or your childhood all in the same span of time.  You can also experience something in the present, instantly connect it to something that happened thirty years ago, and then immediately act on the combination of both the old and new information almost without thinking.  It's miraculous.\n\nThe ability to think like this no doubt stemmed from our animalistic past, and the need to survive previously inexperienced phenomenon, but over time, we've adapted it to be able to create, envision, and imagine things that don't yet exist.  This is something that has plagued computer scientists working on A.I. since the beginning.\n\nGetting back to your original question, I guess we should ask ourselves, does the brain exist to control the body, or does the body exist to transport the brain around it's environment.  Since, over time, intelligence seems to increase in complexity, one would have to say that the body exists to transport the brain around.  This leads us to ask, did intelligence occur spontaneously, or was the body designed to be programmed?  \n\nWith computers, the limitation to the capabilities of the software is ALWAYS the hardware.  Even though programmers always find clever ways of doing things with limited hardware, there is always a limit.  So far, this doesn't seem to be the case with the human brain.  There seems to be no limit to how sophisticated our thought processes can become.  We may only be able to remember and recall a certain amount of information, but being able to INNOVATE, and create previously unimagined connections between things seems to be limitless.  In a sense, we are able to continually "re-write" our own operating systems, based on the new things we learn.  Thank goodness too, because what a drag to think there was a limit on how much we could learn or know.\n\nFor this reason, I'd have to say that if our brains are like computers, they haven't been "programmed" with software in any conventional sense.  They are just too fluid and adaptable to be compared to something as limited as a computer.
85922
the brain is capable of processing 400,000 bits of information a second,we process 2000 what does that tell you?consciously trying to solve two difficult problems at once is unlikely.Good Luck
340530
Actually, this is a misunderstood myth.\n\nIt sources from 2 misunderstandings.  First, we never use 100% of our brain at the same time (i.e. different activities stimulate different neurons at different times).  And, second, a good portion of our brain (perhaps 60-80%) are connections.  Think of it like an airport hub system, where the hubs allow people to connect to the more remote places where fewer people travel.\n\nAlso, just to back this up from a logic perspective, it really would make very little sense evolutionary wise that 90% of the brain would be wasted. And, in fact, through evolution, our brains have been getting larger, not smaller.\n\nFurthermore, when there are some people who are able to recover from serious brain injuries, it is more driven by new connections being formed, rather than new brain cells being created.\n\nHope that helps explain things.
523496
Inorder to relate brain mechanics to physics you would have to use the quantium electrodynamics or the theory of electrostatic "Like studying how the processor works" but instead of electrons you can use neurons (how various sections of the brain handle data or signals and what part of the body they affect if signal transmission is ineffective) \n\nRealy hope you find an answer I would realy want to know your progress good luck!
573928
The plug on the end that goes into the wall!\n\nThe real answer is that every component is as important as the other.\nJust go in and snip a wire or a resistor for fun.\n\nIf I leave my brain at home I can't function, can I? Is the brain the most important organ in the human body? What if I leave my liver at home.  Soon I'm dead. How about I leave my stomach at home and go to a Chinese buffet. Gads what a mess I'd be in! So is the brain more important than the liver or stomach. Me thinks not. For any complicated organism or device to work it needs all it parts so each part is as important as the other.
606021
The brain is a highly parallel electrochemical computing and storage device.  Because of this, it can be (and is) quite "slow" compared with a linear device and not well suited for exact sequential calculations of any significant complexity, but it is extremely well-suited for large-scale pattern storage and recognition.  The massive parallelism also makes for a very fault-tolerant device, which is required for an organic construction where individual storage nodes can (and do) become inoperable over time, and the storage within individual nodes is not guaranteed to be permanent due to its electrochemical nature.\n\nMany computer scientists and engineers have been attempting to simulate the massive parallel computational ability of an organic brain for some time now.  Some topics for further research:  neuroscience, neural networks, parallel distributed computing, cognitive science, organic microcircuitry, and artificial intelligence.
264533
Certainly!\n\nHuman memory really isn't all that great,in terms of data bytes. \n\nFor a discussion of this, see:\n\nwww.merkle.com/humanMemory.html \n\nThough clearly it varies widely from person to person, but estimates found in the literature place it between 100 to 1000 Gigabytes. Hard drives capable of that amount of storage are available now and aren't very expensive.\n\nIt's not the amount of memory that makes humans unique from machines, it's their ability to learn, reason and process data, usually called "intelligence".  \n\nNow, if you ask, can we create a machine with "intelligence" like humans? That's more difficult, but I believe that within the next ten or twenty years machines will come along that have a very low IQ. \n\nA scientist who first explored this possibility from a theoretical standpoint was an Englishman named Alan Turing. He conceived what became known as the "Turing Machine" and attempted to describe how it would work.  As a result, he helped create the first computers back in the 1930's and '40's. You might want to read some of his papers.\n\nGood question!
85108
Did you ever stop to think, maybe it isn't microprocessors that are the next step in evolution, but plastics. Our brains are supposed to have 100 billion neurons. We could make a plastic structure with 100 billion interconections (cross-linked polymer molecules) a lot sooner than a chip with 100 billion transistors. So, be nice to plastics-- they might be throwing us out tomorrow.
90141
We may have a gallon of brain matter inside our heads,\nbut some, if not many of us, only have a shot glass of knowledge, reasoning, and logic up there.\n\nI mean, look at the Deep South of the US???\n\nAn entire hive of bees have more logic than the entire region.\n\nWill this be "to go"?