Brain capacity

[Basileos Leandros I]

I've had a nagging thought in the back of my mind for the past months and it refuses to go away.


What if we are all born equal in terms of brain capacity, but the IQ/intelligence/ability/whatever else is determined by the percentage of the brain you use? Aka the more brain you use, the smarter you are?


There's a myth about the 10% capacity, but I say it's pretty obvious we don't use the FULL capacity of our brains. So there goes my question. It's just pure speculation, but it refuses to go away.

Thoughts?

[Tacitursa]

The Neural networks in the brain grow and reinforce when we learn. It's true that people with higher IQ use more of there brain but only because there is more for them to use.

Anyone can improve and grow there neural network though, Brain just needs lots of exercise via learning. A strong neural network also improves memory which is related to a high IQ i guess. Memory is very useful for mathematics

[Solid Snake]

That 10% myth is because technically most of our brain doesnt think, most of it es neuroglia, hence they have no role whatsoever in the thinking-learning process.

[Clibby]

We still wouldn't be the same due to epigenetic factors. Some people are more motivated than others. Some would focus their limited memory on school and "exercise" their brains, while others simply would not. People would still be vastly different based on experiences that motivate them. Motivation is the primary reason why we do anything, be it eat, sleep, study, or pursue professional careers. Some people don't have the motivation to study and this primarily comes from epigenetic sources.

IQ/intelligence/etc. are terrible measurements of how smart we are. They have increased every generation since their inception. Does this mean we are getting smarter? Probably not. More likely is the idea that we are more educated. They are not the same thing.

Finally, my favorite topic: memory. The 10% of our brains thing really isn't what you think. We use all of it. For memory, three primary areas are utilized. The cerebellum, the prefrontal cortex, and the hippocampus. (Neurogenesis actually happens in the hippocampus, specifically in the dentate gyrus, if you want to dispel any trivial pursuit questions!) While they all perform other tasks as well, they are almost entirely utilized during specific types of memory. The phrase arose from the idea that you could remove portions of the brain and remain essentially fine. They didn't account for minor differences seen after excision of certain brain areas nor the fact that the brain was separated into specialized areas that have different responsibilities.

That 10% myth is because technically most of our brain doesnt think, most of it es neuroglia, hence they have no role whatsoever in the thinking-learning process.

Not true. Glia are critical for neuronal function and may actually play a role in synaptic transmission. They are critical for some types of synaptic modification which is one way in which our neurons learn new associations. Also thats like saying the myth is true because the brain is mostly water. No neuronal network would work without its associated glia cells.

[Elfdude]

Our brains are all more or less equal in capacity, which is estimated to be about 2.5 petabytes using the most current estimations, this is more than the entire datastores of the human race btw. The differences between us are the result of a combination of genetics but mostly reinforcement. Our brain works off of positive feedback loops which run exactly like a neural network. Just like a computer processor and it's transitors it doesn't make sense for every neuron to be on at the same time. As for the 10% myth, that's not necessarily a myth although the actual number generally spikes between 15-40% at any given time, its just that throughout our day we're likely to use every neuron at some point (if we don't the connections are cut and the neurons tend to die). What's important to note is that it's just as much about what parts of the brain are off as which parts are on. A line of 1111 1111 1111 doesn't do anything 'better' than 1011 0101 0010 in fact it completely eliminates the ability of the computer to calculate if every circuit is open. Hence to create a meaningful thought your brain needs to activate some areas in preference to others. Now the brain itself is not like a computer. A neuron could be described as a single computer but that's really doing the neuron an injustice.

What makes the biggest differences in how we think isn't the quantity of neurons - they are moderately important i.e. our bigger brain lets us think better than our ape cousins but many animals can do considerably more with considerably less or considerably less with considerably more - or the number of connections they make but rather it's dependent on which connections they make. A female is not necessarily less intelligent than a male although their brains are a third smaller than men's because we both develop brain connections in the same way. This neural plasticity essentially negates any genetic affinities we might have in regards to intelligence which is to say there's many possible organizations for our brains which produce the same level of 'intelligence'. The most important things for intelligence really is stimulation. Our brain is constantly pruning itself and deciding that it doesn't need this processing or that. Some of these cuts actually make the brain more efficient and faster, other cuts wind up hurting us in the long run. We essentially have an equal opportunity to become intelligent from the time we're born.

[Clibby]

Our brains are all more or less equal in capacity, which is estimated to be about 2.5 petabytes using the most current estimations, this is more than the entire datastores of the human race btw. The differences between us are the result of a combination of genetics but mostly reinforcement...

...We essentially have an equal opportunity to become intelligent from the time we're born.

Not entirely true. Genetic differences play a major role in the function of certain neurons. Some people have higher dopamine levels in some brain areas, some less. Same with all other neurotransmitters. Some people develop more neuronal connections between brain areas both through genetics and fetal hormonal levels (in part due to the genetics of the mother). These interactions play a crucial role in phenotypic behavior, motivation, emotion, proprioception, attention, and memory. Yes we all have the ability to be intelligent, some people are more adept at certain tasks than others. Unfortunately, people don't like to hear this.

However, differences are not so large that people are predetermined to be smart or dumb. In that respect you are right. Almost everyone is born with the ability to learn anything and be almost anything. Its just that not everyone has the ability to be the best physicist, physician, entrepreneur, writer, athlete, etc..

P.S. I like your use of 1s and 0s to explain neuronal inputs! I am currently studying memory models that use linear algebra to describe how we can encode and recall information. This model is essentially treating the brain like a computer and it works with amazing accuracy. We may not be so different from computers when it comes to encoding and decoding information.

[Elfdude]

Not entirely true. Genetic differences play a major role in the function of certain neurons. Some people have higher dopamine levels in some brain areas, some less. Same with all other neurotransmitters. Some people develop more neuronal connections between brain areas both through genetics and fetal hormonal levels (in part due to the genetics of the mother). These interactions play a crucial role in phenotypic behavior, motivation, emotion, proprioception, attention, and memory. Yes we all have the ability to be intelligent, some people are more adept at certain tasks than others. Unfortunately, people don't like to hear this.

I wasn't arguing against that. I was more saying... (hard to word) due to the power of the brain to adapt those are merely affinities. One can overcome them one can essentially lose them. If you get good genetics from your mother and father if you aren't stimulated in your first five years of development you can and likely will lose that leg up and may even become mentally deficient. At the same time a baby with presumably poor genetics and epigenetic influences (but otherwise normal) for intelligence have been shown to be able to develop genius level intelligence simply from early age stimulation. Hypothetically one might even be able to adapt to more severe difficulties such as dyslexia, psychosis and even much more severe disabilities, unfortunately it's unclear whether it's physical inability on their part or communication and teaching difficulties on ours. For example dopamine deficiencies can be brought back up through simply conscious thought exercises designed to reinforce certain feedback loops. Meditation, and biofeedback are good examples of this.

However, differences are not so large that people are predetermined to be smart or dumb. In that respect you are right. Almost everyone is born with the ability to learn anything and be almost anything. Its just that not everyone has the ability to be the best physicist, physician, entrepreneur, writer, athlete, etc..

I disagree with that whole heartedly, athlete perhaps but the body works a bit differently than the brain and is no where near as adaptable. The most intelligent individuals in throughout history shared one thing with their respective fields, interest and focus. This interest creates a self sustaining feedback loop which gradually builds enormously strong connections and even rewards the individual for further strengthening those connections. Focus and interest are amongst the largest components of an individual learning. If you can't focus you can't learn.

P.S. I like your use of 1s and 0s to explain neuronal inputs! I am currently studying memory models that use linear algebra to describe how we can encode and recall information. This model is essentially treating the brain like a computer and it works with amazing accuracy. We may not be so different from computers when it comes to encoding and decoding information.

Of course. For an accurate comparison you have to imagine each neuron has hundreds or thousands or millions of states instead of just 0 or 1. Neurons can modulate their frequency, their strength, and can direct incoming and outgoing data to thousands if not millions of other neurons which can all do the same.

Erm...2.5 petabytes is not that huge. It is 2500 terabytes and I have an 1 terabyte HD in my desktop PC.

I'm sorry I was quoting wrong information. The actual number is around 10 to the power of 8,432 bytes or 10 with 8,432 zeros according to Dr Martin Hilbert of the Journal Brain and Mind. If storage happens on a molecular level (which seems to be the case) this number is massively inflated even more. If we take every computer in the world and run them for 1 second, that is roughly the same number of instructions per second that the human brain does in neuron impulses. Which is to say we massively outclass computers. Our DNA alone encodes 100 times the total human data stores which total somewhere around 250 exabytes (dna totals 25000 exabytes).

So what you're all basically saying is you can become smarter by learning and problem solving, and generally exercising different areas of your brain? Essenitally your brain can grow or atrophy much like a muscle?

Yes. Although there's some specific differences. Your muscles expand through hypertrophy which is the tearing of the muscle fibers away from each other due to stress, this allows the cells to expand by giving them space. The pain you feel from exercise is oxygen deprivation mostly, hypertrophy is only really noticeable by the swelling which accompanies the exercise. In the brain you more or less start off with all of the neurons you'll ever have and lose them at a rate dictated by their utilization. Some neurogenesis occurs but it's limited. To compare imagine working out for a few weeks, in order to maintain this very callorically expensive muscle mass you must keep using your muscle fibers at a reasonable rate (muscle degeneration starts in 24 hours), compare that maintenance to the use of your brain except instead of having a way to rebuild it you only have a way to prevent it's loss.

This is mostly because the brain programs itself from birth. There's no real O.S. for ourselves and what little there is can be overwritten by future programming. We have a few instincts buried in our more ancient lower brains but other than that we start off with a rather blank slate and a ton of processing power and are told to make sense of it all.

Unlike computers the brain tires. Because we use electrochemical propagation of action potential (the neuron impulses) we are limited by both the diffusion rate of chemicals, re-uptake, consumption and the production of chemicals. This is essentially your 'attention' span and it represents your ability continue to stress a specific portion of the mind continuously. These chemicals can be reinforced too and adults have vastly more patience than children for this reason but after some time resting would be more effective than continuing to study. This is why learning techniques which utilize different portions of the brain (audio, visual, tactile etc) in quick succession are the most effective. After about an hour of 'rest' your brain can return to same level of operation that it could before being stressed.

Further sleep and diet are extremely important. Stress introduces inhibitors into the learning process both chemically and consciously. Dreaming helps us reinforce what we've learned and make sense of what we've learned throughout the day. I'm sure you've dreamt of playing a game that you played excessively some day. This is your mind attempting to think if playing your game has anything to do with X Y or Z. Unfortunately these dreams needn't make any sense to our conscious mind in order to work. For example if you're playing a game involving snow your brain may call up your information on snow and wonder if the information is useful in regards to playing with snow, it may also call up information on other games, if guns are present it might call up information on that. Indeed after a night's sleep or even one sleep 'cycle' abilities show drastic improvement.

[Clibby]

If you get good genetics from your mother and father if you aren't stimulated in your first five years of development you can and likely will lose that leg up and may even become mentally deficient.

Yes

At the same time a baby with presumably poor genetics and epigenetic influences (but otherwise normal) for intelligence have been shown to be able to develop genius level intelligence simply from early age stimulation.

That depends on how you define your poor genetics and genius intelligence. Evidence suggests that Einstein may have had Asperger's Syndrome. He is one of the most brilliant physicists to ever live, but his social skill were not only lacking, but down right inappropriate at times. Interestingly, some of those with Asperger's have been shown to display an unbelievable talent in very specific areas, specifically those with a computational focus. This suggests that we should look at those with Asberger's as compared to those without to see what areas of the brain are differentiated. I'm sure they have done so, I just am not familiar with any studies.

Before I sidetracked myself, I wanted to make the point that I can use case studies to argue almost any point, but you need to analyze a population. You need to look at the trends in the data.

Hypothetically one might even be able to adapt to more severe difficulties such as dyslexia, psychosis and even much more severe disabilities, unfortunately it's unclear whether it's physical inability on their part or communication and teaching difficulties on ours. For example dopamine deficiencies can be brought back up through simply conscious thought exercises designed to reinforce certain feedback loops. Meditation, and biofeedback are good examples of this.

Actually we can figure out whether a lot of disabilities are physical, just not always the why. Also many neurological disabilities are due to differences in brain development, brain trauma to specific areas, etc. Psychological disabilities are the ones that aren't so clear. Some psychoses can be explained by problems with certain brain areas or neurochemical differences, we just don't whether they are the cause or the result.

As for compensating, there are many types of dyslexia (for instance) caused by different deficiencies in certain visual pathways and/or retrieval pathways in the temporal areas. We can compensate by utilizing other pathways to transmit the information once we know what to compensate for, but we do not know how to fix the problems yet. Compensating for a visual problem is different than compensating for a temporal problem. Regardless, its still a deficiency on their end compared to the average person. It doesn't make them a worse person, just different.

As for manipulating neurotransmitter levels, yes you are right. However, you cannot grow more dopaminergic connections between the VTA and the nAcc just because you meditate or glutamatergic connections in the hippocampus. If those cells were never grown during fetal development, you are out of luck. Drugs can improve the efficiency of those current connections. SSRIs (for depression) work on low serotonin levels by allowing the serotonin to stay in the synapses longer and Aricept works by preventing acytlcholine breakdown in Alzheimer Disease(which results in the death of cholinergic cells).

I disagree with that whole heartedly, athlete perhaps but the body works a bit differently than the brain and is no where near as adaptable. The most intelligent individuals in throughout history shared one thing with their respective fields, interest and focus. This interest creates a self sustaining feedback loop which gradually builds enormously strong connections and even rewards the individual for further strengthening those connections. Focus and interest are amongst the largest components of an individual learning. If you can't focus you can't learn.

Like I said people don't like to discuss this. Just look at Lawrence H. Summers, former president of Harvard. He was remarking on how studies have shown that on average, men are more adept at math due to a brain that is designed for spatial computation. He didn't say men were better, or women couldn't do it; he was reciting peer-reviewed data in an attempt to discuss why there were less women in the math and science fields and how to combat it. This may be due to how we educate our children, but there may be some neurochemical di-morphism that makes men more attracted to math than women. We don't know yet. He got fired for discussing the topic. What's weird about that is that it has been shown that there are clear sex di-morphisms in the brain, yet it is taboo to discuss it. For instance, the male nucleus in the hypothalmus (show to be necessary for male sexual behavior) just isn't present in women.

Nobody is arguing that focus and drive are not critical for becoming the best, but you also need to have a leg up in some facet of intelligence related to your field. The brain is not one big organ, its more like many neuro-organs that vary in size and composition. For a population as a whole, all you need to do is a quick search of any set of twin studies and you can see the relationship between genetics and intelligence. Nobody is arguing against the importance of environmental stimulation, but genetics do play a critical role. The simplest way to think of it is that genetics give you the capacity, but the epigenetic factors determine how much of that capacity you reach. What that capacity is, we don't know yet. (Yes it is much more complicated, but I don't feel like writing a review article on what we know. A pubmed search should reveal at least one review article on genetics and intelligence published every year for the last ten years.)

Brain software is greater than Brain hardware. And yes granted that without the Glia cells the neurons would be rather useless, but impulses dont ran through them, or if they do, care to show a link?

Not electrical impulses, but chemical signaling. Rather than collect a bunch of papers, here is a very good review website by Dr. Aizenman at Brown.
https://wiki.brown.edu/confluence/di...and+Plasticity

[Elfdude]

That depends on how you define your poor genetics and genius intelligence. Evidence suggests that Einstein may have had Asperger's Syndrome.

Meh, Einstein also had dyslexia. Leonardo davinci likely had bipolar syndrome and dyslexia. Thomas Edison had 'ADHD'. Churchill had a stuttering problem and hated school because everyone seemed more intelligent than him. Agatha christie had dyslexia and could not spell. I mean the list goes on and on. In fact it goes on to the point that I might hypothesize that it's actually the mental disabilities they face and the process of overcoming those mental disabilities that catapults their intellects so far past the ordinary person's. The one thing they all share is a determination and a drive that is unparalleled. As for einstein having aspergers, that idea is rather silly to me. He excelled in social situations, he had a wife, he had concepts of love and emotions that are beyond aspergers. He was described as unimaginative and distracted in school, he hated math, but no he did have great social skills. Now he was a bit of a ego maniac after he became a career student/scientist.

He is one of the most brilliant physicists to ever live, but his social skill were not only lacking, but down right inappropriate at times.

Such as? How do you explain his poetic artistic grasp of concepts such as love? Good and evil? Morality? Ethics? These are ideas which are typically beyond asperger's sufferers.

Interestingly, some of those with Asperger's have been shown to display an unbelievable talent in very specific areas, specifically those with a computational focus.

I do not believe Einstein had aspergers. Also it's important to note that only some, this is an affinity not a guarantee and how it builds into total 'intelligence' (as in a more comprehensive idea behind knowledge, creativity and ingenuity) is hard to guess at. Is this something our mind does already and the brain suppresses it? (in fact yes yes it is) Is there a way for ordinary people to reclaim this 'austic' ability? yes, take an electromagnetic pulse and hit your left hemisphere with it.

This suggests that we should look at those with Asberger's as compared to those without to see what areas of the brain are differentiated. I'm sure they have done so, I just am not familiar with any studies.

They have, aspergers is is a disease which is characterized by people making connections with objects instead of other people. Their brain isn't very much unlike ours and the genetic component vs nurture component is heavily debated. What does seem to happen though is oxytocin can manage or even completely treat asperger's syndrome.

Before I sidetracked myself, I wanted to make the point that I can use case studies to argue almost any point, but you need to analyze a population. You need to look at the trends in the data.

No. Looking at trends in data only reveals correlations. It does not prove any relation. Further correlations only demonstrate the effect of what has happened total including every variable from societal stigma and human error to artifacts in the data. Case in point when children from various ethnic groups are stimulated in a controlled environment they all grow up to have comparable IQ's and success in life, boys and girls, black and white. Empirical research is what is telling. This denies the correlation that race affects intelligence and pushes the idea that regardless of genetic fractures nurture is most important. I can't find the study unfortunately, it was presented in a documentary (PBS?) my freshman year but I can't seem to remember the name.

Actually we can figure out whether a lot of disabilities are physical, just not always the why. Also many neurological disabilities are due to differences in brain development, brain trauma to specific areas, etc. Psychological disabilities are the ones that aren't so clear. Some psychoses can be explained by problems with certain brain areas or neurochemical differences, we just don't whether they are the cause or the result.

I'm not arguing against this.

*snip

I'm not arguing against this either. I'm simply saying genetic differences amongst populations are vast but intelligence for 'normal' people isn't. You can't tell me a genius is born because in most circumstances they are not, a genius is groomed. By himself, by others, far more often than natural circumstances happen to produce a super genius. Further you must wonder what differentiates someone with a high IQ and someone who has a large variance in IQ's who none the less explores and solves new problems. Not every genius is a scientist or a doctor.

[Mythos]

Our brains are all more or less equal in capacity, which is estimated to be about 2.5 petabytes using the most current estimations, this is more than the entire datastores of the human race btw.

Erm...2.5 petabytes is not that huge. It is 2500 terabytes and I have an 1 terabyte HD in my desktop PC.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

So what you're all basically saying is you can become smarter by learning and problem solving, and generally exercising different areas of your brain? Essenitally your brain can grow or atrophy much like a muscle?

[Solid Snake]

Brain software is greater than Brain hardware. And yes granted that without the Glia cells the neurons would be rather useless, but impulses dont ran through them, or if they do, care to show a link?

[removeduser_4536284751384]

^ Adding to the list of hindered people who are really bright, one of my previous English teachers had dyslexia and was left handed, but he was pushed hard and not allowed to write left-handed, and now he's right handed and can write fine.

[Dr. Oza]

There's a myth about the 10% capacity, but I say it's pretty obvious we don't use the FULL capacity of our brains. So there goes my question. It's just pure speculation, but it refuses to go away.

You use 100% at all times...

[TylerAcc]

It's interesting to think about this as someone with vision problems. I have to wonder if the extra processing power is freed up because it's my eyes that don't work not my brain.

[Clibby]

It's interesting to think about this as someone with vision problems. I have to wonder if the extra processing power is freed up because it's my eyes that don't work not my brain.

Actually the answer is: kind of. Processing power is not freed up per say, but it can be used for other senses. If you are born blind, the area can be used to process sounds or touch with more precision. The earlier the deficit occurs, the more the brain will compensate with the visual cortex.

Check this out (specifically the part on neuroplasticity in blind individuals: Rewiring Vision

[TylerAcc]

That's really interesting thanks for that. My blindness is blue cone monochromotopsia which means my eyes are very ineffective and have been since birth. 20/400 vision is legally blind but I can still see shapes and a couple of colors.

[Dr. Oza]

Plasticity. Your brain adapts to its needs/limitations.

[Vanoi]

I know we use all of our brain, but i read somewhere it only operates at 20% effciency because we don't get enough oxygen to our brains, and because there is not enough oxygen in the air. Is this true?

[Clibby]

I know we use all of our brain, but i read somewhere it only operates at 20% effciency because we don't get enough oxygen to our brains, and because there is not enough oxygen in the air. Is this true?

Not to my knowledge. If that were the case, natural selection would have selected for individuals who keep a higher percentage of fetal hemoglobin. (Fetal hemoglobin has a higher affinity for oxygen than adult hemoglobin, thus more oxygen in the blood.) What is true is that while the brain comprises of only 3% of our body mass, it consumes 20% of the oxygen we take in.