334
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 May 2024
334 points (97.7% liked)
Technology
34811 readers
212 users here now
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I am curious how that conclusion was formed as we have only recently discovered many new types of functional brain cells.
While I am not saying this is the case, that statement sounds like it was based on the "we only use 10% of our brain" myth, so that is why I am trying to get clarification.
They took imaging scans, I just took a picture of a 1MB memory chip and omg my picture is 4GB in RAW. That RAM the chip was on could take dozens of GB!
Not taking a position on this, but I could see a comparison with doing an electron scan of a painting. The scan would take an insane amount of storage while the (albeit ultra high definition) picture would fit on a Blu-ray.
Oh I’m not basing that on the 10% mumbo jumbo, just that data capture usually over captures. Distilling it down to just the bare functional essence will result in a far smaller data set. Granted, as you noted, there are new neuron types still being discovered, so what to discard is the question.