I can't believe this comment isn't buried. Its one thing to engage in a bit of rank speculation outside your specialty, but this is straight-up crackpot science.
If a site keeps doing that, competent people go elsewhere. Why is that post the top comment on an interesting paper from MIT?
Being inflexibly and uniformly critical of all ignorance also drives people off. And the direct subject to a reply isn’t always the most important audience. Sometimes you’re persuading people who are passively reading along. If that sounds absurd in this scenario, consider the number of times a gentler rebuttal in a discussion has given you pause to reconsider some foolish idea you hadn’t expressed. If you can’t think of one, you’re either an outlier genius or maybe overconfident and overcompensating.
Either way, most people aren’t dissuaded of their ignorance by being chastised for it. Speaking as someone who’s lost important friends learning that the hard way.
> And probably the way we humans have built our computers also reflects how the universe really works, because after all we are bits of the universe doing whatever the universe is doing.
I think this is way too simplistic. Just like planes don't fly like birds, computers don't work like "the universe"
We don't know much about the brain at all and starting to think about it in terms of "computer" logic seems very wrong to me. Computers are our very crude and poor attempt at replicating brains/intelligence, by definition they're built on ultra simplified principles that our own brains came up with, using computer terms to define the brain/universe is closing a loop that doesn't exist
It only sounds like a waste because you(we)'re constrained by our own brains, the universe doesn't care about our ability to understand or make sense of it. Something might sound unoptimised to you(us) but might be the only way allowed by physics.
Naming and defining computer parts using human/brain related terms was an error imho, it confuses people and make them think we are able to replicate (or even understand) things that we have no clue about, they're very poor analogies.
> That would be huge waste of resources and just damn stupid.
Isn't the entire universe a huge waste of resource and just damn stupid ?
That's fun enough if that's intended as some form of recreational speculative fiction/sci-fi. I'm all about that.
But you said "model", without qualification, so its hard for me to tell from your comment the extent to which you want to put this forward as something that stands a chance of really being true.
That's unlikely to have any resemblance to how brains work though. For one, we would be lacking the mechanism to do such a 'retrieval'. We can also influence memory formation.
Say you binge drink. You are temporarily unable to form memories. We can pinpoint the exact area affected. Unless alcohol is somehow able to influence the micro-wormholes, it shouldn't affect memories at all.
> As developer I think it would make most sense to only save references rather than trying store all events inside everyones brains.
Remember, nature does not care about that.
This isn't a peer-reviewed journal, nor the Bible. And your comment contributes too, by pointing out it isn't consistent with Western medicine. You're helping the reader who happened to buy into that, not to try combining it with scientific mainstream things, not talk about it at the water cooler, and not talk about it for instance when being psychologically evaluated. Like even if the psych likes you if you say things like that it's out of his hands and he has to flunk you. That's the mistake Feynman made, he talks about flunking a psych exam for the military, but like full-on full F, like they used special words to describe how poor they judged his mind to be, and then he replied to them accepting the F and asking to be flunked harder on the basis it was clearly crazy to write them that letter.
And he was constantly thinking about the fabric of the universe, entertained many wild theories to arrive at sound ones, I'm sure of that.
But yeah, thanks for saying that, in case readers didn't take that comment with a grain of salt. Yours was the grain of salt.
References make sense to me as well, but I also agree with the conclusion of this article, that memories are distributed. If you put the two together, then I think it works well. Those could be distributed references, that when fired together, activate a specific memory somewhere else in space-time.
Because everything is constantly moving around something each event in the universe probably has unique location, a real physical place where it happened.
So, the idea is that as we’re moving through space we’re leaving a trail as the events are (lack of better word) “printed” in the fabric of space. Then as apparently Space is not empty at all but filled with Planck scale micro wormholes entangling all things into this one universal neural network, then our brains should be very well capable of tracing back our unique trails through space and retrieve information through those micro wormholes.
As developer I think it would make most sense to only save references rather than trying store all events inside everyones brains. That would be huge waste of resources and just damn stupid.
And probably the way we humans have built our computers also reflects how the universe really works, because after all we are bits of the universe doing whatever the universe is doing.
Peace