[funsec] Zapping your brain during REM = %8 more memory

Blanchard_Michael at emc.com Blanchard_Michael at emc.com
Tue Nov 7 12:35:19 CST 2006


> Consider it the cognitive equivalent of trying to pass at Talledega with a big
> honking restrictor plate....

do who with what now? I dont think we should use watching cars drive
in circles for 6 hours as an analogy with higher brain functions ;-)


---->  no no no, he meant that his response, physically, was like trying to pass at Talledaga with a huge restrictor plate...  I'll sum it all up for ya:  "Couldn't get out of there fast enough!" <grin> 


Michael P. Blanchard 
Antivirus / Security Engineer, CISSP, GCIH, CCSA-NGX, MCSE
Office of Information Security & Risk Management 
EMC ² Corporation 
4400 Computer Dr. 
Westboro, MA 01580 


-----Original Message-----
From: funsec-bounces at linuxbox.org [mailto:funsec-bounces at linuxbox.org] On Behalf Of Dude VanWinkle
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 12:41 PM
To: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu
Cc: FunSec [List]
Subject: Re: [funsec] Zapping your brain during REM = %8 more memory

On 11/7/06, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu <Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 11:30:58 EST, Dude VanWinkle said:
> > They may have to update this because I will take the route of saying
> > that our brains run at 10 efficiency or that 10 percent of its
> > potential.
>
> <and goes on to cite several examples that don't prove much of anything
> other than (a) there's a bell curve and (b) much of the cited behavior is
> actually trainable, and *has* been for most of known history

You are now arguing for the point I was trying to make. I am sorry if
I didnt describe it very well. but thats what I mean when I say we
arent using anywhere close to 100 of what are brains are capable of.
We have the capability to use it and we can be trained or learn how to
use it, but we arent currently using 100% of our functionality.


> how do you think all of Homer's works were preserved?

matt groening backed up the data and archived it?

> Note that it's also unclear what "100% efficiency" would *mean* - if all
> neurons are firing all the time,

If 100% of your neurons were firing all the time, you would fry your
brain. Efficiency IMO has nothing to do with what percentage of
synaptic connections are currently active. That would be at 100% power
or something.

> I'm sure that Saturday when I startled
> a bobcat in his lair when only 2 foot or so from the opening, I went through
> a *lot* of neurons comparing the snarl to every sound I ever heard, and coming
> up with a good response...)

Actually you weren't using any of your higher functions at that time.
You were using the fight-or-flight response which i believe is in the
hypothalamus and brain stem.


> Consider it the cognitive equivalent of trying to pass at Talledega with a big
> honking restrictor plate....

do who with what now? I dont think we should use watching cars drive
in circles for 6 hours as an analogy with higher brain functions ;-)

> Also, firing the neurons more often means you burn more glucose, which means
> both more cooling issues, and the need to eat more.

Like I said, you would probably die very soon after firing all your
neurons at once. Consider it the cognitive equivalent of  dropping an
M-80 in a watermelon :-)

> > This is why, even though its listed on snopes.com as being untrue,
> > that I will still continue to quote that fallacy.
>
> Ya know, Dude, if you *used* the other 90% of the neurons, you could do
> amazing stuff.... like change your mind when confronted by evidence. :)


phbbbt! :-P

-JP
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.




More information about the funsec mailing list