Has our brain reached full capacity?

cavarka9 · #1 by **cavarka9** » Aug 10, 2011 12:14 pm

Has our brain reached full capacity?

LONDON: Scientists have claimed that the human brain may have reached its full capacity and can't get cleverer.

A team at Cambridge University, led by Professor Simon Laughlin, says this is because the people are unable to provide the amount of extra energy and oxygen needed to become more intelligent.

The scientists have based their findings after analysing the structure of the brain and worked out how much energy its cells use up.

Professor Simon Laughlin was quoted by the British media as saying, "We have demonstrated that brains must consume energy to function and that these requirements are sufficiently demanding to limit our performance and determine design. Far-reaching powers of deduction demand a lot of energy because for the brain to search out new relationships it must constantly correlate information from different sources. Such energy demands mean there is a limit to the information we can process."

The scientists say that the wiring inside the brain would need vast amounts of extra energy to become more efficient. As it's impossible for humans to provide this, they can't become any smarter.

In their research, the team measured the efficiency with which different parts of the brain communicated with each other and found impulses travelled fastest in smarter people and slower in those who were less intelligent.

"High integration of brain networks seems to be associated with high IQ. You pay a price for intelligence. Becoming smarter means improving connections between different brain areas but this runs into tight limits on energy, along with space for the wiring," Ed Bullmore, team member, said.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home ... 449337.cms

Grace · #2 by **Grace** » Sep 20, 2011 12:32 pm

I think not.

As long as humans have a desire to get more and more out of life than is possible at the time, I think we will keep evolving until we end it. Children are being born who can solve complex math problems at age 4. Imagine billions of people being able to do that thousands of years from now. We have a desire to read people's minds. We have a desire to see into the future. We have a desire to seek answers to all of our questions.

Who thinks our brain has reached full capacity? Some old tired professor who has lost his creative spirit? Ask a young genius that question and see what you get. Einstein was born with gray matter no one else had. Did he pass this on to his son, and did his son pass this on to his children?

No, we have not reached our full capacity.

Bribase · #3 by **Bribase** » Sep 20, 2011 12:37 pm

LONDON: Scientists have claimed that the human brain may have reached its full capacity and can't get cleverer.

igorfrankensteen · #4 by **igorfrankensteen** » Sep 20, 2011 12:53 pm

My instant reaction, is that this is yet another example of someone who's understanding of things is limited to mechanics of the present, convincing themselves that the limits of possibility are identical to the limits of their imagination.

I am reminded of the famous myth that a patent official resigned, saying that everything that COULD be invented, already had been. It never happened, but things very close to that sort of thinking are put into the news every few days, owing to the habit that reporters have, of passing every small, possibly amusing or frightening thing they hear, and to the fact that said reporters commonly don't in the least understand what they are reporting.

I would say that what this boils down to, is that someone who DID think they understood energy consumption in the brain (I'll bet they didn't really), worked out a formula for the sake of personal amusement, and then published it. They had NO comprehension about how the brain's structure influences intelligence, so they IGNORED that factor entirely. Rather an important element, I would think.

cavarka9 · #5 by **cavarka9** » Sep 20, 2011 4:47 pm

I think, they meant the natural way in which our brain evolved and not necessarily the capacity.

Grace · #6 by **Grace** » Sep 20, 2011 9:59 pm

"I am reminded of the famous myth that a patent official resigned, saying that everything that COULD be invented, already had been. "

Humans are so arrogant, especially when humans get old and tired. Puke! Thank Buddha young people come along with new and refreshing ideas!

epepke · #7 by **epepke** » Sep 20, 2011 10:11 pm

Grace wrote:"I am reminded of the famous myth that a patent official resigned, saying that everything that COULD be invented, already had been. "

This, of course, never happened.

Grace · #8 by **Grace** » Sep 21, 2011 3:10 am

It has been said, 'all the stories that could be told have already been told.' Also, the British literary critic Christopher Booker, has stated that there have only been seven basic plots, as follows: Tragedy, comedy, overcoming the monster, voyage and return, quest, rags to riches, and rebirth.

I suppose to epepke, this, of course, never happened either.

quas · #9 by **quas** » Sep 21, 2011 7:20 am

The problem is energy? Just get a new PSU.

Zwaarddijk · **#10** by **Zwaarddijk** » Sep 21, 2011 7:37 am

Grace wrote:
Humans are so arrogant, especially when humans get old and tired. Puke!

I tend more towards puking when the arrogance is caused by youth and ignorance.

I think not.

As long as humans have a desire to get more and more out of life than is possible at the time, I think we will keep evolving until we end it.

My desire to solve ridiculously difficult maths problems won't cause mutations that will benefit my children's genes in ways that makes it easier for them to attain that goal (or in any other ways for that matter). My desire to speak seven languages fluently won't cause mutations that will benefit my children's genes in ways that makes it easier for them to attain that goal (or in any other ways for that matter). Please learn how evolution works. Please. We've already been over this.

Who thinks our brain has reached full capacity? Some old tired professor who has lost his creative spirit?

Yeah, ad hominem has always been a valid argument! Go for it!!!

No, we have not reached our full capacity.

He didn't say we couldn't evolve. We know, for instance, that avian brains are more efficient per mass than mammal brains - but this is because there's been a huge evolutionary pressure to minimize the weight of their brains (yet ability to do quick decisions in flight has been of some relevance) - hence the intelligence of several species of corvidae, for instance. (Similar-sized mammal brains don't perform anywhere near as impressively). We don't have that kind of evolutionary pressure. And evolution is slow.

What the (probably more right than you are) professor basically is saying is 'the increase which has occurred this far in recent mankind is faster than evolution could account for, and this is an increase we can't really expect to go on much longer' - which sounds like something you accept by positing evolution as a solution to it! I think we'll probably routinely extend the human brain's functionality and power with machines a few generations down the line. Maybe there'll be biochemical improvements as well. We do know machineries do have maximum capacities in general.
It is possible his model for intelligence is flawed, and there's generations of increased intelligence due to better nourishment and better use of what's in there already (but that'd basically require we learn better algorithms, which most people won't - but e.g. for approximating operations on big numbers, learning a fair share of logarithms and such is useful. So yeah, we can do some learning to get quite huge operations done in the mind and at least get an answer in the right ballpark. )

Recently downloaded a paper about a trick to multiply ten-digit numbers in your head (altho' it takes hours, it still uses no paper and pen, just a pre-learned sequence of images, weird enough) - the problem with intelligence is it needs to be adaptable. We haven't been able to adapt human intelligence this far to come up with a proof that P!=NP, or with an efficient method of simulating protein folding, or a water-tight strategy for go, and so on. This might in part be because the brain simply can't do that kind of thing. (Ok, I do think efficient protein folding might be possible to figure out with our kind of brain).

Grace, there actually are limits as to what is computable. A human brain is a kind of computer, and will have the same kinds of limitations that at least the best computer imaginable will have. And we know a fair bit about some of those limitations. And knowing this, and saying that these are limitations we won't surpass isn't giving in to grumpiness -it's being rational and realistic.

byofrcs · **#11** by **byofrcs** » Sep 21, 2011 7:52 am

I think the article is more or less right. The example of Einstein is a good one in that he did not formulate the theories in isolation but stood on the shoulders of others e.g. Maxwell. Without that groundwork he would have come up with nothing.

There will be a biological limit.

epepke · **#12** by **epepke** » Sep 21, 2011 2:39 pm

Grace wrote:It has been said, 'all the stories that could be told have already been told.' Also, the British literary critic Christopher Booker, has stated that there have only been seven basic plots, as follows: Tragedy, comedy, overcoming the monster, voyage and return, quest, rags to riches, and rebirth.

I suppose to epepke, this, of course, never happened either.

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2011/01 ... ented.html

Warning: This requires reading ability!

Grace · **#13** by **Grace** » Sep 22, 2011 2:24 am

"Warning: This requires reading ability!"

Rude crap doesn't fly with me...

epepke · **#14** by **epepke** » Sep 22, 2011 2:28 am

Grace wrote:"Warning: This requires reading ability!"

Rude crap doesn't fly with me...

Says the person who was rude to me, for no reason.

Zwaarddijk · **#15** by **Zwaarddijk** » Sep 22, 2011 7:40 am

Grace wrote:"Warning: This requires reading ability!"

Rude crap doesn't fly with me...

How about you actually counter the non-rude arguments raised in this thread by non-rude participants of this thread as well?

Rome Existed · **#16** by **Rome Existed** » Sep 25, 2011 2:35 am

So we'll just evolve bigger lungs, better arteries, etc.

byofrcs · **#17** by **byofrcs** » Sep 25, 2011 4:06 am

Rome Existed wrote:So we'll just evolve bigger lungs, better arteries, etc.

Only if we are evolutionarily selected for such that is a side-effect. My approach would be to genetically add extra layers to the neo-cortex.

Mr.Samsa · **#18** by **Mr.Samsa** » Sep 25, 2011 5:38 am

The researchers seem to be assuming that intelligence is correlated with brain size, but we know that this isn't true. We could have a smaller brain and be vastly smarter, which would mean less cells = requiring less energy.

eric8476 · **#19** by **eric8476** » Sep 25, 2011 6:03 am

yeah, the brain functioning components, from cells the regions of the brain can develop as they are, the amount of brain is not necessary perhaps.

Federico · **#20** by **Federico** » Jan 22, 2012 3:56 pm

I don't think so and I’ll tell you why. But first a few assumptions and comparisons based upon scientific facts.

Neurones and myocytes are both derived from the same totipotential stem cell as have also all the other cells of the human body although, of course, with time they go through a process of differentiation and specialization that ends up with entirely different cells, with different location and purpose.

Myocytes -- the components of muscles -- although superficially identical in the common man and in the 100 m Olympic gold medallist, at a more close and sophisticated evaluation are significantly different as (eg) in the rate and efficiency of energy utilization, genetic and epigenetic regulation of cell machinery, plus a background of intensive training far exceeding that of a Sunday jogger.
We know, of course, that drugs such as the anabolic steroids, can greatly -- albeit illegally -- enhance the performances of some athletes up to Olympic records until the fraud is discovered, which results in the ill-begotten medals being taken away as happened to the notorious Ben Johnson.
So, for myocytes at least, drugs can improve on Nature's work, but are there limits to what Nature can do by herself?
To answer that question we may look at at the world record times for the men's 100 m sprint from 1912 to 2002

The data over the last 90 years does not suggest the records will continue to fall as they did in the first 40 years up to 1950.
However, the Sept, 2000 issue of Scientific American has a wonderful lead article about Muscles & Genes. One of the sections discusses what athletics will be like in an age of genetic enhancements -- the genetic engineered superathlete where injecting DNA into quads, hamstrings, and gluts will activate (build) fast fibers.

That's as far as the muscle goes, and it's probably true also for cardiocytes, lung cells etc, but what about the Brain? Will it be possible -- naturally and/or artificially -- to keep incrementing forever its cognitive capacity?

According to an article written in Sci Eng Ethics by Nick Bostrom and Anders Sandberg, both at the Oxford University, it is something quite possible to do mechanistically but potentially fraught with awesome ethics' problems.