You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

khafra comments on Neuroimaging as alternative/supplement to cryonics? - Less Wrong Discussion

17 Post author: Wei_Dai 12 May 2012 11:26PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (68)

Comments (68)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 15 May 2012 03:06:25PM 0 points [-]

I'm confused. Are you saying that they are wrong when they say that womb environment impacts intelligence and sexual preference? Is it possible that there's an issue of definitions going on here about what is meant by "about zero"?

A few years ago, some of them frequently claimed, that there is a ridiculously big number of bytes stored in human memory. Something much greater than goes inside the Beckenstein's bound for the planet, let alone the head.

Do you have a citation for this? I'd be curious to see that.

Comment author: gwern 15 May 2012 03:27:27PM 2 points [-]

There's one estimate in the While Brain Emulation roadmap from (Wang, Liu et al., 2003) estimating that the brain has a computational capacity with 10^8432^ bits of memory.

Sandberg & Bostrom sardonicly note in a footnote that 'This information density is far larger than the Bekenstein black hole entropy bound on the information content in material systems (Bekenstein, 1981).'

Comment author: JoshuaZ 15 May 2012 03:29:45PM 0 points [-]

I'm not surprised that such estimates exist. What I'm more doubtful is the claim that such bounds were "frequently claimed".

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit