Why do people 'know stuff'?

[M.N. Dalvez]

The simple answer is, people 'know stuff' because they know other stuff, and they can usefully relate new data to past data they've received.

All 'knowledge' is related to all other knowledge.

You can't learn something easily from a starting point of 0. You need to know other stuff to easily learn 'new stuff'.

What's the useful conclusion we can take from this? Knowing as much stuff as possible will make your capacity for learning new stuff greater.

We're not hard disks; we don't have a maximum storage capacity. As far as I know, the human brain doesn't have a maximum capacity for new data.

[Mr A.Anderson]

Learning Kills You-Trailer Park Boys - YouTube

Learning Kills You-Trailer Park Boys - YouTube

What Is the Memory Capacity of the Human Brain?

Paul Reber, professor of psychology at Northwestern University, replies

By Paul Reber


What is the memory capacity of the human brain? Is there a physical limit to the amount of information it can store?
—J. Hawes, Huntington Beach, Calif.

Paul Reber, professor of psychology at Northwestern University, replies:

“Mr. Osborne, may I be excused? My brain is full,” a student with a particularly tiny head asks his classroom teacher in a classic Far Side comic by Gary Larson. The deadpan answer to this question would be, “No, your brain is almost certainly not full.” Although there must be a physical limit to how many memories we can store, it is extremely large. We don’t have to worry about running out of space in our lifetime.

The human brain consists of about one billion neurons. Each neuron forms about 1,000 connections to other neurons, amounting to more than a trillion connections. If each neuron could only help store a single memory, running out of space would be a problem. You might have only a few gigabytes of storage space, similar to the space in an iPod or a USB flash drive. Yet neurons combine so that each one helps with many memories at a time, exponentially increasing the brain’s memory storage capacity to something closer to around 2.5 petabytes (or a million gigabytes). For comparison, if your brain worked like a digital video recorder in a television, 2.5 petabytes would be enough to hold three million hours of TV shows. You would have to leave the TV running continuously for more than 300 years to use up all that storage.

The brain’s exact storage capacity for memories is difficult to calculate. First, we do not know how to measure the size of a memory. Second, certain memories involve more details and thus take up more space; other memories are forgotten and thus free up space. Additionally, some information is just not worth remembering in the first place.

This is good news because our brain can keep up as we seek new experiences over our lifetime. If the human life span were significantly extended, could we fill our brains? I’m not sure. Ask me again in 100 years.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...emory-capacity

[snowglobe]

This theory of yours is based on an assumption.

That assumption is this...We can learn more stuff based on what we already know.

Unfortunally for those of us in the "free world" that assumption
that is based on a baseline data (read propaganda)...and that is incorrect.

Until we can verify that the base line data is correct, then we cannot base anything on it.

We have little more than sand castles of understanding that we spend our lives trying to figure out, and adding the MSM to the mix?

Then we try to learn "New Stuff".

Until the foundation is made strong the house is doomed to fail when given enough time.

Sadly our foundation is weak, we learned stuff (read propaganda) ...and now we are learning more "stuff" based on our sand foundation.

I do not mean to sound harsh. I am not picking a fight with you.

Have a good evening.

[Mr A.Anderson]

Originally Posted by snowglobe

This theory of yours is based on an assumption.

That assumption is this...We can learn more stuff based on what we already know.

Unfortunally for those of us in the "free world" that assumption
that is based on a baseline data (read propaganda)...and that is incorrect.

Until we can verify that the base line data is correct, then we cannot base anything on it.

We have little more than sand castles of understanding that we spend our lives trying to figure out, and adding the MSM to the mix?

Then we try to learn "New Stuff".

Until the foundation is made strong the house is doomed to fail when given enough time.

Sadly our foundation is weak, we learned stuff (read propaganda) ...and now we are learning more "stuff" based on our sand foundation.

I do not mean to sound harsh. I am not picking a fight with you.

Have a good evening.

I hardly consider math, physics, biology, or chemistry (to name a few) propaganda.

The propaganda theory of yours is only applicable in a social sense or faux sciences like psychology.

I understand what you were saying, but I don't think it was what Dalvez was referring to (at least my interpretation of it). Of course, I don't really know his stuff, so I really couldn't create any lasting stuff (with any certainty) from it myself by using my uncertain interpretation of his stuff as a baseline..

[snowglobe]

Originally Posted by Mr A.Anderson

I hardly consider math, physics, biology, or chemistry (to name a few) propaganda.

The propaganda theory of yours is only applicable in a social sense or faux sciences like psychology.

I understand what you were saying, but I don't think it was what Dalvez was referring to (at least my interpretation of it). Of course, I don't really know his stuff, so I really couldn't create any lasting stuff (with any certainty) from it myself by using his uncertain stuff as a baseline..

You entered this conversation...why?

Please answer this question politely?

I wave my southern bell pinkie finger at you. Please have a good day. :-)

[Mr A.Anderson]

Originally Posted by snowglobe

You entered this conversation...why?

Please answer this question politely?

I wave my southern bell pinkie finger at you. Please have a good day. :-)

OK, I'll play your silly little game and refrain from waiving the finger I usually do when faced with condescension.

Um......because it is a Discussion forum?

**Edit**

And it wasn't cherry picking. I was merely pointing out that your post about basing his OP being upon a false assumption.......is quite possibly a false assumption on your own part. You did prove your own theory in a way. That if you don't really know the stuff you throught you knew (your interpretation of his post), then any future stuff you create (your post) is built upon a weak foundation and is bound to fail.

[snowglobe]

Originally Posted by Mr A.Anderson

OK, I'll play your silly little game and refrain from waiving the finger I usually do when faced with condescension.

Um......because it is a Discussion forum?

**Edit**

And it wasn't cherry picking. I was merely pointing out that your post about basing his OP being upon a false assumption.......is quite possibly a false assumption on your own part.

You did prove your own theory in a way. That if you don't really know the stuff you througt you knew (your interpretation of his post), then any future stuff you create (your post) is built upon a weak foundation and is bound to fail.

I will allow myseolf a thousand degrees of disrespet!

[M.N. Dalvez]

I do not mean to sound harsh. I am not picking a fight with you.

No, I get what you mean. Some 'information' can exclude other information; make it harder to acquire information.

Propaganda, as you say, is information - information designed to shut other information from your mind, or at least make it harder for you to understand certain types of information.

How else, after all, to explain many people's inability to make sense of reality thanks to the indoctrination they've received from popular culture, from social engineering ... ?

Are you very familiar with Boolean logic? That stuff is basically a NOT switch; anything marked with the NOT switch is excluded from search results and so, isn't accounted for. This can be a useful thing for refining one's searches, or it can exclude stuff that very well could have proved to be useful.

I was making a general point, though; that the more we know, the more we can know. Discrimination and discernment is up to the individual.

[Mr A.Anderson]

On the other hand, can't we also make assumptions and create new knowledge by knowing that something is incorrect, also?