/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11634325]

How small can the human brain get in terms of overall volume and mass whilst maintaining the equivalent level of computational power? How small can we make the smallest computational equivalence of the brain? One cubic centimeter? bigger? Smaller?

[Anonymous No.11634337]

>>11634325

[Anonymous No.11634344]

none, smaller brains are dumber brains

[Anonymous No.11634348]

>>11634337
>>11634344
please no trolling in my thread

[Anonymous No.11634700]

>>11634348

[Anonymous No.11634742]

seriously does anyone have an idea? like could we make a doll sized person as intelligent as a normal sized one? I would like a doll sized bf (i am a female)

[Anonymous No.11634906]

not really a brain expert or anything. but am diagnosed with ADHD so some of my brain parts have less volume. which affects my different functions. different sizes on brain parts can have different effects. i heard autists have bigger volume and the closer they are to becoming neurotypical the smaller their brain parts get. while in ADHD its the oppisite where the brain has to grow to be similar in functioning as a neurotypical. brain thickness probably matters a lot but i dont know much about that. maybe you could have a overall smaller prefrontal cortex or something and some other brain part was bigger because the person has trained or engaged in that brain part much more. in autistic savants they utilise different ways of networking to make up for their deficits. i also heard ADHD people have a thicker occipital lobe or something though i havent been able to read much on that.

[Anonymous No.11634984]

>>11634906
This is very interesting but i meant moreso in general terms. like in all forms of computers how small can we get in efficiency so that we can make human brains as small as possible on any computer hardware.

[Anonymous No.11634993]

>>11634984
hmm. i guess that depends on how much hardware you can cram up in a little space and how fast and effective they would be at communicating each other. prob far into the future that would be possible.

[Anonymous No.11635004]

>>11634325
birds have very efficient brain architectures. Small brained birds are smarter than mammals with much larger brains.

I think that after civilization collapses, birds will evolve to inherit the earth the same way that mammals did after the dinosaurs.

>>11634742
transexual =/= female

[Anonymous No.11635022]

I mean depending on what stage of development probably could be condensed to about 2.4cm^3

[Anonymous No.11635084]

>>11634337
is this real?

are memories stored in a decentralized way in the human body?

[Anonymous No.11635214]

>>11634742
As someone who would like to /be/ a doll-sized bf, I've come to the conclusion it might be possible if one is willing to take lengths. As >>11634337 shows, a lot of brain volume is redundant or being used for small gains, but that's still a lot of volume. >>11635004 is correct that birds have more efficient brains, part of this is due to a different structure. Going further, most insects extend their 'brain' throughout their nervous system, giving you more volume than what the cranium can supply. Some insects have developed a compact neuron (see microwasps) that allows them to reach ridiculously small scales yet still navigate significant distances. Altogether, this paints a hopeful picture that one day we might engineer a race of tinies sometime after catgirls.

[Anonymous No.11635253]

>>11635084
Memories aren't quite stored. You can see that by the effects of time. You forget. You reconstruct them every time.
Last time I mentioned the brain folds being more important than size. Our brains are smaller than Neanderthals but we are smarter. Brain folds man.

[Anonymous No.11635269]

>>11634337
Is this real?

[Anonymous No.11635328]

>>11634325
Smaller. Much smaller. Consider that even the tiniest insects have brains.
>>11634742
>>11634906
>>11634993
>>11635084
>>11635214
>>11635253
Well the problem seems to be that our brains are horribly, bizarrely inefficient. Consider that ants can recognize themselves in the mirror, something that even some apes struggle to figure out.

[Anonymous No.11635357]

>>11635328
well maybe ineffiecent at certain things. clearly we as a species have a brain like this because it benifited our ancestors and lead to survival of our species. a lot of animals dont need certain functions or that much of a brain power in certain aspects in survival. the human brain is very adaptable to situations and i think that might be the biggest advantage of our brain. not a neurologist or a expert on this but its just from what i know seem to be the case.

[Anonymous No.11635582]

>>11635328
>Consider that ants can recognize themselves in the mirror, something that even some apes struggle to figure out.
do you think that what ants do, what humans do, and what apes do, when they all recognize themselves in the mirror, are the same?

[Anonymous No.11635599]

>>11635357
Well it's unlikely the brain evolved to be inefficient on purpose, more like there is some reason that prevents them from functioning well, that cannot be easily evolved around.
>>11635582
Please elaborate what you mean. What do you mean the same? They recognize themselves. How could it be different? In what way?

[Anonymous No.11635602]

>>11635357#
Well it's unlikely the brain evolved to be inefficient on purpose, more like there is some reason that prevents it from functioning well, that cannot be easily evolved around.
>>11635582#
Please elaborate what you mean. What do you mean the same? They recognize themselves. How could it be different? In what way?

[Anonymous No.11635756]

>>11634337
this is fake if you're wondering

[Anonymous No.11635883]

Are there any ways to do it without biology? like an actual computer or a different material instead of brain tissues? i think those have better potential for making the human brain smaller

[Anonymous No.11636507]

Bump
Please I want this to be real by the next 10 years

[Anonymous No.11636706]

>>11635328
How many years would it take for apes or ants to have mastery over the electron and be able to communicate globally using satellites they have launched into space? Their brains are completely eclipsed by ours by orders of magnitude when it comes to intelligence, our brains are the most efficient computers in the universe that we know of (even if they could be more efficient).

[Anonymous No.11636728]

>>11634742
You could probably scale a person down to some point because a lot of neural circuits control somatic activity. But at a certain point the exponentially decreasing number of possible circuits would limit computational power

[Anonymous No.11636809]

>>11636706
The thing is that ants very well might be the closest to being closest of animals to being able to do so, even if they obviously shouldn't. Or if they should, we should be literal gods. But we are not.

[Anonymous No.11636813]

>>11636706
>>11636706#
The thing is that ants very well might be the closest of animals to being able to do so, even though they obviously shouldn't be. Or if they should, we should be literal gods. But we are not

[Anonymous No.11636822]

>>11636813
well we are gods compared to ants.

[Anonymous No.11636929]

>>11636822
No we are not. And you know what I meant, stop trying to be a smartass, you won't win any arguments that way.

[Anonymous No.11636963]

>>11634742
You nutter.

Why? So you can use him as a dildo?

[Anonymous No.11636988]

>>11635328
I've heard this but never actually seen anything published about it, I find it much more likely that the ants were irritated by being painted rather than actually displaying self awareness

[Anonymous No.11637004]

>>11636988
Even if the ant findings are weak, it's been demonstrated that bees can solve simple puzzles. Go look it up on youtube; it's fascinating.

[Anonymous No.11637062]

>>11634742
Anon, this is very important for research purposes. Please reply IN DETAIL what precisely you would do with a tiny bf. I can't give you a definite number without this strictly necessary information.

Eagerly awaiting your response,
Doctor of Science, Professor Sir Anon M.D.

[Anonymous No.11637085]

>>11635756
>source: i don't understand how it could not be fake
Kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.11637105]

>>11636822
>we are perfect beings to ants
Consider the possibility that the only reason you were made to know of Thor and greek mythology is so you would understand the word "god" like a child does.

[Anonymous No.11637117]

>>11634344
Didn't neanderthals had volume whise bigger brains than humans?!

[Anonymous No.11637126]

>>11635004
New Caledonia crow/

[Anonymous No.11637127]

>>11637117
How big were dinosaur brains?

[Anonymous No.11637152]

>>11637127
You also always have to see the brains in relation to their body scice. The thing in neanderthals who was kinda that their brains dis seme to have had a larger volume. But obviously that lets us question a few things, right?

[Anonymous No.11637164]

>>11637085
https://www.reddit.com/r/Nootropics/comments/9cxw4k/no_brainer_the_case_of_the_man_with_no_brain_and/e5e1cau/
gwern explains how it's fake

[Anonymous No.11637181]

>>11637117
>>11637152
Yes, but even bigger brains relative to body size isn't 100% predictive of intelligence. Archaic neanderthals would have still been several leagues more stupid than archaic humans. In fact, most human adaptions over the past 20 k years or so has pertained to increasing neuron efficiency, resulting in better, smaller brains. Of course, this doesn't mean that size doesn't play a role at all, it obviously does when we're talking about populations.

[Anonymous No.11637182]

>>11637164
No he doesn't, gwern.

[Anonymous No.11637300]

>>11637182
then you're free to go ahead and try to replicate the study

[Anonymous No.11637704]

>>11634325
As small as we want, according to science's own ability to control and build at smaller levels. However, this will remain impractical unless these little people are also given an environment similar to our own, just on a smaller scale, like that one movie with Matt Damon, since the brain has evolved to fit into certain environments and would be completely obliterated by other environments.

This won't really ever be necessary, though, since we will master artificial intelligence and machine learning before science has the ability to synthetically recreate people on a smaller scale. The former will be much cheaper than the latter, and will also be easier to train, since science can evolve this artificial intelligence at a higher speed than them evolving synthetic small human-like creatures in artificial environments. Not to mention the greater control science will have over organisms they synthetically create at that point would already function like a machine since all guilting and artifice and the moral cunning that produced things like religion could potentially cause a little-person uprising where little-people earn their "natural rights" in hyperadvanced capitalism-democratic civilization and slowly skew decisions with their power. Since computers don't have artifice, then they will function similarly.

Then again, if we reached that point then women might already be extinct since sexuation is no longer necessary with cloning and advanced genetic engineering meaning unnecessary pitying and sympathizing which was evolved in women since women who had these traits were able to produce and raise their kids more effectively thereby carrying their genes and spreading these traits more and more will be gone (but only if weak feminine men are then obliterated as well which can only happen if enough selection pressure is put on the species as a whole which will eventually need to be done (hopefully by the rich coalescing against the resentful, inciting war)).

[Anonymous No.11637717]

>>11637704
>As small as we want, according to science's own ability to control and build at smaller levels
this is simply not true and renders the rest of your post irrelevant

[Anonymous No.11637727]

>>11637717
No, it is perfectly correct, as long as we show what attributes we have defined "human computation" as having.

[Anonymous No.11637750]

>>11637727
No, it isn't. Bremerman's limit is the hard limit on computation. There is no getting smaller than that. I don't even know what "sciences own ability to control and build at smaller scales" even means. Your whole post reeks of schizo.
>>11634325
In terms of the human brain, if we're assuming brakeman's limit and compressing the human brain down to the limit, the human brain can be contained in a 1/20 gram mass that takes up about 1.5 cubic centimeters

[Anonymous No.11637803]

>>11634344
Objectively incorrect retard. Einstein's brain was smaller with a more concentrated amount of neurons

[Anonymous No.11638734]

>>11636822
Ants are the only non human animal that went beyond hunting and gathering and mastered animal husbandry and agriculture.

[Anonymous No.11639287]

>>11637750
A 1/20 gram mass at Bremerman's limit is like 100 million people

[Anonymous No.11640692]

>>11634325
Define "human" some brains.

[Anonymous No.11642153]

>>11634337
Fake+gay

[Anonymous No.11642169]

>>11637181
>increasing neuron efficiency, resulting in better,
No source.

Current humans are "domesticated" (theory) . More docile, less intelligent in some areas that are not longer so critical in a society. Just like dog are dumber than wolf.

[Anonymous No.11644163]

bump

[Anonymous No.11644186]

DURR BIGGER = BETTER
SMALL BIG = BIG BIG = BIGGER BETTER HURRR

[Anonymous No.11644322]

>>11635253
fun fact, koalas have smooth brains and they're so dumb that if you put eucalyptus leaves on a plate, they won't recognize them as food.

[Anonymous No.11644453]

>>11637117
Yes, and neanderthals had better ability to reason. Humans were just more aggressive and more social so they won.

[Anonymous No.11645289]

>>11634337
simply enough, the brain is just a Penrose-style quantum interface that only needs enough microtubules to tune in to that shit, with all the computing going on in some otherspace. So much for brainlet "neuroscience".

[Anonymous No.11645310]

>>11642169
>Current humans are "domesticated" (theory) . More docile, less intelligent in some areas that are not longer so critical in a society. Just like dog are dumber than wolf.
That's only for the subservient species, i.e. dogs are stupid compared to wolves because a being with superior intelligence(us) bred them to be more stupid and social. No such thing exists for humans, thus we've evolved to be more intelligent over the past 20 k years or so.

[Anonymous No.11645713]

>>11644453
They were more likely only able to memorize more, but they were dumb as fuck otherwise.
Or maybe not, and they live in spacd somewhere.