Number of Connections in the Brain

[Glider]

Well, the maths works only if you assume that each synapse plays a unique part in a single memory. However, if you assume that each single synapse may be involved in many related memories, then the equasion becomes a lot more plastic.

[Kedas]

A recent paper on this subject is Discovering the Capacity of Human Memory' date=' Wang, et al, 2003, Brain and Mind, vol 4, no 2, p. 189-198.

 

The formula for calculating this is simple -- just calculate the number of combinations. We'll conservatively assume 100 billion neurons of 3,000 synapses each:

 

= 10^11! / 3000! * (10^11 - 3000)!

 

It takes a special program to calculate such large factorials, but the result is 10^8432.

[/quote']

 

This is obviously wrong because they assume with this calculation that each neuron can connect to all other neurons.

If you know how a neuron of the left side of my brain connects with a single connection to a neuron at the right side of my brain, let me know

[joema]

This is obviously wrong because they assume with this calculation that each neuron can connect to all other neurons.

If you know how a neuron of the left side of my brain connects with a single connection to a neuron at the right side of my brain' date=' let me know.[/quote']

I think the reasoning is any synapse can connect to any other synapse via a unique neural pathway, often transiting through other intervening neurons and synapses.

 

IOW it's not just the neuron-to-neuron direct connections, but the unique PATH between any two synapses. It could be many thousands of neurons long. Each synapse could participate in many different memory "bits", as each is usually part of many different unique neural paths. The authors of the Wang paper posit that it's the RELATIONSHIP between any two synapses, anywhere in the brain, that stores a memory "bit", not a physical bit "container" in a specific brain location.

 

I think there's some basis for that, based on current limited understanding of neural electrical activity. However my problem is it requires each unique path to be "remembered". IOW once activated SOME biological mechanism, SOMEWHERE in that path must be changed. Otherwise a subsequent trigger of that path would engender no different response than the first.

 

Even if only one atom changed, you only have so many atoms in the brain. Therefore although 10^8432 path possibilities mathematically exist, it seems impossible they could all simultaneously be available for storage. Ultimately something, somewhere must store each equivalent "bit", and even if that's on a discrete atomic level, there's not enough atoms to exceed roughly 10^27 bits.

 

Therefore I don't understand the statements about the brain having "more storage bits than there are atoms in the universe" (often repeated, don't know original reference), or 10^8432 bits (above Wang paper).

[joema]

BTW, the Wang "Memory Capacity" paper can be found here (PDF):

 

http://www.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/wangyx/Publications/Papers/B&M-Vol4.2-HMC.pdf

[Teotihuacan]

I think the reasoning is any synapse can connect to any other synapse via a unique neural pathway' date=' often transiting through other intervening neurons and synapses.

 

Therefore I don't understand the statements about the brain having "more storage bits than there are atoms in the universe" (often repeated, don't know original reference), or 10^8432 bits (above Wang paper).[/quote']

 

The original quote, now apparently lost in obscurity, did not neccessarily result from GIGO. It could've been a more generalized statement, such as: There's more capacity in the human brain than all the atoms in the universe. (ie. the capacity to Imagine or Create)

 

We may be trying to blow this up.... Bigger than it's original file size.

[bunburryist]

The number of connections in the brain are very, very few and mostly limited to the Cerebellum. These legitimate connections are called "gap junctions." I get so tired of people - knowledgable people - going on and on about "connections" in the brain. Although the word "synapse" comes from the Greek word meaning connect, synapses are not connections. The synaptic cleft is a space between neurons. Neurochemicals floating around between neurons does not "connect them."

 

Except in the case of gap juntions, impulses do not propagate from one neuron to another. An impulse propagates to an axonal synapse(s), then chemicals float their merry way across the synaptic cleft. The fact that his happens rather quickly does not do away with the fact that they are not connected. At any given time, the vast, vast majority of your neurons (the exceptions being gap juntions) are DISconnected.

 

Why does this definitional point matter? Because the biggest problem- the "dirty laundry" - in neurology is how to reconcile billions of SEPARATE neurons with a self-evidently holisitic experience. You will notice that neurology types don't spend much time discussing this problem - they don't even think about it because they believe, implicitly, that you have billions of connections in your brain. Look how far down you had to read in these responses before the problem was brought up. Rob

[Heretic]

I think the reasoning is any synapse can connect to any other synapse via a unique neural pathway, often transiting through other intervening neurons and synapses.

 

IOW it's not just the neuron-to-neuron direct connections, but the unique PATH between any two synapses. It could be many thousands of neurons long. Each synapse could participate in many different memory "bits", as each is usually part of many different unique neural paths. The authors of the Wang paper posit that it's the RELATIONSHIP between any two synapses, anywhere in the brain, that stores a memory "bit", not a physical bit "container" in a specific brain location.

 

I think there's some basis for that, based on current limited understanding of neural electrical activity. However my problem is it requires each unique path to be "remembered". IOW once activated SOME biological mechanism, SOMEWHERE in that path must be changed. Otherwise a subsequent trigger of that path would engender no different response than the first.

 

Even if only one atom changed, you only have so many atoms in the brain. Therefore although 10^8432 path possibilities mathematically exist, it seems impossible they could all simultaneously be available for storage. Ultimately something, somewhere must store each equivalent "bit", and even if that's on a discrete atomic level, there's not enough atoms to exceed roughly 10^27 bits.

 

Therefore I don't understand the statements about the brain having "more storage bits than there are atoms in the universe" (often repeated, don't know original reference), or 10^8432 bits (above Wang paper).

 

Actually this is completely false. Neurons do not fire backwards and forwards. They all do not join, to be blunt, you are wrong. Some nerves carry signals forward and backwards since they consist of several neurons. Please do not post assumptions of neurobiology until you understand simple, basic, action potential. The brain is not a random mess of wires, it is a fine tuned device.

 

And just so you know, we've got a damn good idea of how it works.

[silverslith]

The number of connections in the brain are very, very few and mostly limited to the Cerebellum. These legitimate connections are called "gap junctions." I get so tired of people - knowledgable people - going on and on about "connections" in the brain. Although the word "synapse" comes from the Greek word meaning connect, synapses are not connections. The synaptic cleft is a space between neurons. Neurochemicals floating around between neurons does not "connect them."

 

Except in the case of gap juntions, impulses do not propagate from one neuron to another. An impulse propagates to an axonal synapse(s), then chemicals float their merry way across the synaptic cleft. The fact that his happens rather quickly does not do away with the fact that they are not connected. At any given time, the vast, vast majority of your neurons (the exceptions being gap juntions) are DISconnected.

 

Why does this definitional point matter? Because the biggest problem- the "dirty laundry" - in neurology is how to reconcile billions of SEPARATE neurons with a self-evidently holisitic experience. You will notice that neurology types don't spend much time discussing this problem - they don't even think about it because they believe, implicitly, that you have billions of connections in your brain. Look how far down you had to read in these responses before the problem was brought up. Rob

 

This is a very good point and I would love to talk about it. Though it seems you are right that others are scared to.

The slow speed of nerve impulses delivered by chemicals causes big problems for me too. Quantum entanglement could provide a hypothesis for how the neurons behave like they are connected. Independant of space entangled particles could light up quantum computers in distant neurons. Perhaps the chemicals passed between neurons are delivering entangled electrons on their aromatic rings.

Probably entanglement is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to quantum subspace communication!

Ive read that there is an average of some 60 carbon nanotube structures in each brain cell and they could theoretically function as quantum computer bits. (quantum bits are 1 and 0 and not 1 and not 0 all at once until you resolve them with a question). Quantum computers can in theory solve simultaneous equations with as many variables as their bits by simultaneously looking at all possible combinations. Sounds suspiciously like the way the human brain works to me.

[silverslith]

Darn! no-one wants to talk about it bunburryist!

 

I'd be surprized if brains didn't use quantum effects. Why would they not?

[nettron]

Could it be that the brain doesnt actually store each individual "bit" of information ? but instead stores information as an algorithm (think recipe) which can reconstruct an "event" at will ? Remember the brain is massively parallel so it can do this quite quickly.

[DJPhi]

Actually, what you heard IS correct, but only if you insert the word "potential" into that sentence. There are actually approximately 3.75 x 10^1,056,570,551,815 possible unique connections for 100 billion neurons. However, the human brain is thought to contain more than 100 billion neurons. This outnumbers the number of atoms in the known universe (estimated anywhere from 10^77 to 10^88 atoms, depends on who you ask) by at least 10 billion orders of magnitude, which means that there are 1.06 x 10^12 times more possible unique connections in a human brain than atoms in the universe. The way you arrive at that muligoogolplex of a number is by using factorial notation.

For example say we only had 10 neurons, how many unique connections can we make? Well, rather than just counting up the number of possible connections (10+9+8+...+1) you need to treat each pathway as a variable and find the number of unique ways to connected every point to everyother point. For example the signal can travel from neuron 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 or 1-3-2-4-5-6-7-9-10..etc

To calculate the number of unique pathways, you need to use (n-1)! So, with ten neurons you have (10-1)! = 10! = 10*9*8*7*6*5*4*3*2*1 = 3,628,800. When you use this standard formula to finding the number of possible permutations for connections of neurons in our brains you end up with almost uncalculatable numbers. For instance

1! = 1

10! = 3,628,800

100! = 9.33 x 10^157

1000! = 4.02 x 10^2,567

.....

10,000,000,000! = approx. 2.33 x 10^95,657,055,186

100,000,000,000! = approx. 3.75 x 10^1,056,570,551,815

 

That number is so large it is for all intents and purposes, infinity.

I ve done this calculation using approximation software which uses the Stirling approximation function. It uses a logarithmic version of the classical iterative method of factorial notation (n-1)! used for smaller n values. The Stirling approximation is desribed as follows: n! ~ n^n x 10^(-n) sqrt(2*pi*n)(1 + 1/(12n))

 

Well, there you go. i hope that clears up the seemingly paradoxical question! We have remarkable brains. The most complex machine in the universe is sitting in between your ears.

[weknowthewor]

I just came across "Computation in the brain". Please do visit it explains some points of our relation.

[jdah4]

I think they are referring to potential number of connections in the brain. If so, then the potential number of connections would dwarf the number of atoms in the universe. The idea is that each neuron can send a message to every other one in the brain. Whether this is true or not, who knows. I guess in principle it is. It is an nearly impossibly huge factorial, maybe 10 to the 30th, factorial. That makes the number of atoms

in the universe (maybe 10 to the 80) very small in comparison.

 

It is not that the neurons are connected rather they have the potential to be. I think that is what they mean. Might help if someone could post on possibility that each can talk to every other. If they can, then the human brain would be the most complicated thing we can come up with. Sure we can think of things larger than the brain but the brain is most complicated in sense of a thing that has reason to be thought of as together.

[Alchemist]

There are more neurons in an average adult brain than there are stars in the sky, ergo there are more neural connections between neurons in an average adult brain than there stars (not atoms) in the universe.

[pioneer]

Except in the case of gap juntions, impulses do not propagate from one neuron to another. An impulse propagates to an axonal synapse(s), then chemicals float their merry way across the synaptic cleft. The fact that his happens rather quickly does not do away with the fact that they are not connected. At any given time, the vast, vast majority of your neurons (the exceptions being gap juntions) are DISconnected.

 

The neurons are connected through synaptic gaps by water. Water is the wild card variable since it represents the continuous phase. If we added salt to a glass of water the ions dissolve and the properties of water change making it more corrosive, for example. If we add brain to water it does the same thing except the properties of water becomes structured for consciousness. Being the continuous phase it defines the holistic properties.

 

Here is how to look at it. Enzymes will not work without water. There is nothing that can replace water and allow a cell to work. The water is almost as important as the biomaterial itself. It takes these two to tango. This unique connection between water and life is everywhere. One part of this dance team is more fluid and the other more structured. Consciousness is a blend of fluidity and structure with both highly integrated.

[Khailand]

The average number of connections in the human brain does not exceed the amount of atoms in the universe. If we assume that each connection is made of a dendrite/axon connection, then each connection requires many atoms. Therefore, if each connection requires many atoms, it is impossible that the connections could exceed the number of atoms in the universe.

 

Furthermore, the amount of potential connections could not exceed the amount of atoms in the universe. If each connection requires at least two atoms (they really require more) then the amount of connections in the brain could not possibly be more than 1/2 the amount of atoms in the universe. Obviously the brain could not have anywhere near this amount of connections because a human skull could not contain half the mass of the universe.

 

I'm guessing that when people use the term "potential connections" they are referring to the amount of possible different connections that could be made. If there are 10^11 neurons and each one can make 100 connections then the total possible number of different connections is 10^13 times 10^13, which is only 10^26 and much smaller than the estimated 10^80 or so atoms in the universe. Note that I don't know the average number of connections that each neuron makes, but it would have to be a very large number for the amount of possible connections to equal the amount of atoms in the universe.

 

You are forgetting that we talking about a neural network here. This means that every synapse (connection) can be indirectly to connected to many, many other synapses through any number of neuronal bodies. An average dendrite has about 1000-10000 branches. If you consider that each of those connections also has untold numbers of indirect connections, then the 100billion^100billion estimate is actually a LOWER BOUND for the number of possible connections in the brain. The idea that there are more connections in the brain than there are atoms in the universe is quite possibly true. In fact, this would be true even in very small brains.

[bascule]

You are forgetting that we talking about a neural network here. This means that every synapse (connection) can be indirectly to connected to many, many other synapses through any number of neuronal bodies. An average dendrite has about 1000-10000 branches. If you consider that each of those connections also has untold numbers of indirect connections, then the 100billion^100billion estimate is actually a LOWER BOUND for the number of possible connections in the brain. The idea that there are more connections in the brain than there are atoms in the universe is quite possibly true. In fact, this would be true even in very small brains.

 

If your definition of "connection" is "possible ways to walk the graph from node/neuron A to arbitrary node/neuron B", then yes, that's true.

 

That's not a very useful definition of "connection". By that logic my sewage is connected to your drinking water.

[pioneer]

The idea that there are more connections in the brain than there are atoms in the universe is quite possibly true. In fact, this would be true even in very small brains.

 

Think of this logically. The brain is composed of atoms and only a small fraction of the atoms of the universe are part of any brain. Each connection may involve hundreds of atoms. While most of the atoms in the brain play a support role for cells. So the number of connections in the brain may by 1/1000th the number of atoms in the brain, at max. Maybe galaxies in the universe may be a better analogy. I am not being critical just trying to use some simple logic to help your analogy.

 

Computer memory uses a binary system, with combination of these on-off switches used to represent specific characters. Obviously numbers and alphabets are more recent than neural memory. Is there any information as to the nature of the character types, combinations of natural neural memory units represent? Maybe shapes that look like EM wave parts??? I picture sort of stones thrown into a pond, representing overlapping EM waves. Maybe the natural characters are a type of alphabet of wave pieces able to assemble any wave overlap combination that the sensory systems can generate.

[iNow]

And computer memory is not a valid representation for human neural connections in the brain, so... erm... you can again be ignored, pioneer.

[Khailand]

Again, you're forgetting that the number of atoms in a neuron has NOTHING to do with the number of connections it can make. Do some research on combinatorics and you find out that it is possible to "connect" objects even in small networks in in a huge number of ways, even when (as in the brain) there are physical limitations on the pathways through which a connection may be made.

[jdah4]

Some others on thread have suggested the number of brain connections is being confused with the of potential brain states. I agree. I think those who say number of potential connections in brain is greater than number of atoms in universe are correct. Asumming any neuron can connect with any other in the brain (even though we know they probably cannot)) produces one grandaddy of a whopping huge number. A giant factorial or combinatorial product that does make the numbers of atoms in universe look puny.

 

The point I want to open for discussion/expansion is that the comparison of the number of potential brain states to number of atoms is kind of like comparing apples to oranges. It uses potential combinations versus actual number of atoms that exist. To make comparisons apples to apples I think we should be comparing potential atomic states to potential brain states.

 

So if we assume any unit (atom or neuron as case may be) can connect to any other then the numbers and conclusions seemed to get turned on their heads. The number or potential states in the universe dwarfs the number of potential connections in the brain. Potential brain connections is dwarfed by a factor X which at minimum is

 

(atoms in universe)

---------------- = X

(neurons in brain)

 

But X is way way too small because the number of combinations increases geometrically (I think?) as number of units (atoms or neurons) increases.

 

I am gonna guess that the estimated number of potential atom states in universe is greater than the number of estimated brain states (even assuming every neuron can connect with every other which we do not believe to be the case) by a factor bigger than (1 Quadrillion times the number of atoms in the universe).

 

I think this approach, comparing brain states to atom states is a fair one. Astrophysics talks about the possibilities for harnessing energy using exotic structures like worm holes and drives to transport material in space (and time?) across huge astronomical distances. So in theory any atom can be 'connected' with any other in the universe, just like any neuron in the brain can be connected with any other.

[insitu]

it seems quite strange and surreal, and yet possible!

 

according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron under the section CONNECTIVITY it reads: the human brain has a huge number of synapses. Each of the 10^11 (one hundred billion) neurons has on average 7,000 synaptic connections to other neurons.

 

10 to the power of 11 = 100000000000

 

100000000000 times 7000 = 700000000000000

 

700000000000000 is the number of synaptic connections, however that number does not reveal all the possible connection between neurons. if we want to find all the possible connection we must take the FACTORIAL which uses the symbol "!" in statistics. e.g. if we want to take the factorial of, say, 5 we'd do it like this 5! = 5 times 4 times 3 times 2 times 1 = 120 so if we would have 5 synaptic connections then we would have 120 possible connections.

 

the only problem is that, to take the factorial of 700000000000000 may be impossible, cos the number is too large. well at least my calculator isn't powerful enough for that

 

moreover, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe there are 10 to the power of 80 atoms in the observable universe. well 10^80 is much less than 700000000000000 factorial? i suppose so... of course thou this is just the observable universe, who knows how many atoms there are in the entire universe.

 

finally, giving that, all the numbers and estimates are correct, and that i didn't mess up any calculations as i usually do, it seems fair to say that there are more possible connections in the brain than atoms in the observable universe. this, of course, doesn't prove that there are in fact more possible connections in the brain than in the entire universe, however the question still remains plausible, since the brain beats the observable universe.

 

P.S. we must consider one thing when we discuss about the brain, which is, the brain MUST have A LOT neurones, synapses, connections etc, cos the brain is what gives rise to consciousness (if that even exists) so there must be an "infinite" amount of possible connection, so that we may act freely and not predetermined...

 

or maybe im just drunk

[Chris L]

I think it's a ridiculous statement which the author (I mean the person who first said it) has absolutely no grounds to back it up on!

 

The biggest thing is that NOONE KNOWS or even comes CLOSE TO KNOWING how many atoms are in the universe!

 

a) The universe is 'mainly empty space' - Granted, but there are many debates about what this empty space actually is, i.e. the Dark matter debate, and does that somehow contains some kind of atom?!?

 

b) We have no idea how large the universe is...

b I) IF the universe is infinite in size, then the statement is clearly false.

b II) It may well be infinite, it may well not, but the vast ridiculously large and incomprehendible size of the universe means that it cannot even be accounted for by humanity, we just don't know enough about it, or have any clue as the the size or extent.

 

c) ALL of our knowledge so far about the size of the universe is based on PURE conjecture, there is no unifying theory of its size or origin, or even the very nature or what is happening.

 

d) We DO NOT know if the universe is expanding, stable or shrinking, thus possibily changing the 'number' atoms constantly.

 

e) ANYONE who claims that they do know the size of the universe, or what is happening to it, is in a small minorty and will be contested by many many scientists of many many different levels.

 

f) any such claims such as above like "Unless you live outside of the universe" are impossible and equally ridiculous. By its very definition, the universe contains everything, there is no 'outisde the universe' to live, as everything in existence is part of it.

 

Short answer: Whoever you heard make that claim was talking rubbish, and obviously was just trying to make the point that there is an incredible number of possible connections in the brain. Such exravagent claims though, only undermine his position. Furthermore he is obviously a Neuroscientist of some ilk, and knows nothing about astrophysics.

[LimbicLoser]

It sometime surprises me how some threads get dug up, but it also adds jest from time to time. I enjoyed reading this one, and would suggest that a couple of posts on page 2 handle the main thrust of the original question's prime concern--the number of connections in the (human) brain.

 

As mentioned, there's no final number, of course, but a general area that one can come across. Also, as bunburryist had pointed out, we might want to define more carefully just what we are talking about. On this point, I will go for the term 'connection,' just as it is usually used. The reason for doing so (as highlighted with the matter of extracellular fluid) is that any particular presynaptic terminal will 'signal' to a more specific postsynaptic density area through the neurotransmiter vesicles. (neuromodulators and hormones are more general).

 

The OP's quote, as also pointed out, may be off. Rita Carter does have it as:

"

The brain has around 100 billion neurons. There are more potential connections between neurons than there are atoms in the universe

." (The Human Brain Book, pg 39 (top right box); DK; 2009)

 

It may still be very, very premature in nature, as pointed out just above. However, I do like the way Dr. Ramachandran put it within context in his 1998 work, Phantoms in the Brain (p. 8):

...neurons make contacts with other neurons, at points called synapses. Each neuron makes anywhere from a thousand to ten thousand synapses with other neurons. A piece of your brain the size of a grain of sand would contain one hundred thousand neurons, two million axions, and one billion synapses . . . Given these figures, it's been calculated that the number of possible brain states--the number of permutations and combinations of activity that are theoretically possible--exceeds the number of elementary particles in the universe.

"

 

We might choose to be liberal with that term 'elementary particle,' so as to think of something besides atoms, yet I'd tend to think he had intended that definition; otherwise, he did spell out what was intended with that 'possible brain states' a bit better. While I understand the complaint which is just above this post, I'd simply like to point out that I take such things as simply statistical sketches, used to give a more graspable image of something--thus we need not take all specifics of the terms in their most literal, and accurate, report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

June of '08 only posted twice on it, on the same day

[shelby]

I think the actual number of connections at any one time is less than the number of atoms in the universe but the potential number of connections is higher than the number atoms in the universe.

 

Capacity limits of information processing in the brain. Marois R, Ivanoff J. Trends Cogn Sci. 2005 Jun;9(6):296-305.

Yup true.

The number of possible combinations though is another matter and far surpasses the number of atoms in the universe by well... a long way I'd think

I'm guessing that when people use the term "potential connections" they are referring to the amount of possible different connections that could be made. If there are 10^11 neurons and each one can make 100 connections then the total possible number of different connections is 10^13 times 10^13, which is only 10^26 and much smaller than the estimated 10^80 or so atoms in the universe.

the number of conections can not obviously be more than even the number of atoms in the brain. but if each conection can have at least two posible states to be in, say on or off, then the number of different configurations, possible combinations of on's and off's is some hugh number like 100 trilion squared or factoral or something much bigger than my brain could ever understand.

 

if each possible conection patern is concidered a "brain State" then brain states is probably what the original speaker ment to say.

A recent paper on this subject is Discovering the Capacity of Human Memory, Wang, et al, 2003, Brain and Mind, vol 4, no 2, p. 189-198.

 

The authors estimate the human brain's memory capacity at 10^8432 bits (yes, that's no typo).

[...]

connection possibilities (unique pathways) = n! / m! * (n - m)!, where

n = number of neurons

m = average # of connections between neurons

[...]

While I agree that number of potential neural paths exist, I'm not sure 10^8432 bits of storage is possible. The brain contains very roughly 10^26 atoms. Even if you assume each atom has six degrees of freedom, and that memory bits are stored on the atomic level, that's only about 10^27 bits.

 

Is there any way to store more data than you have equivalent storage bits? Is there any conceivable way the brain could store data more densely than the atomic level? If not, it would seem that 10^27 bits, not 10^8432 bits would form the maximum theoretical upper limit on memory capacity.

 

Would appreciate any comment on this, I've tried to figure it out but I'm stumped.

BTW, the Wang "Memory Capacity" paper can be found here (PDF):

 

http://www.enel.ucal...-Vol4.2-HMC.pdf

 

 

I assume by "Memory Capacity" the aforementioned paper was trying to ascertain the Shannon-Entropy information capacity. I think they conflated concepts, which I explain in footnote [8] below.

 

I had to work on the answer as part of some other brain+information technology+psychology+economics (polymath) research I am doing. Please feel free to check for errors.

 

Untangling the Spaghetti Politics of the Dunbar Number

 

You should click the link above to read the [7], [8], and [9] footnotes, as they are important for full understanding.

"The brain is a network of neuron nodes and analog synapse interconnections. Like most physical networks, the interconnections in the brain are multiple intersecting multifurcating trees[7], because this yields the least energy cost per interconnection, which maximizes the number of possible interconnections, which maximizes the information capacity. Thus for any one physical brain with N neurons and m synapses per neuron the number of physical interconnections is N x m, which equals the total number of synapses[7]."

 

"Thus estimated quantity of synapses-neuron interconnections in the human brain is 10^14 to 5 x 10^14, and although this has an unknown information capacity[8], we can use the relative interconnection magnitude as a measure of relative information capacity."

 

"To increase the capacity of information beyond the natural thermodynamic limit of each individual's brain, I had the mathematical insight in 2008 that although each individual instance of the brain is multiple intersecting multifurcating trees, the quantity of synapse-neuron interconnection possibilities for all potential brains is N x m x P, where P = combinations(N,m)^N is the size of the population[9]. Note that the upper limit for human combinations(10^11,10^3) = (10^8432)[8], which is more numerous than the known quantity of atoms in universe. Assuming all these potential brain instances (individuals) could interact in ways that do not create mutual information, then the theoretical total information capacity of the mesh network of individuals would increase by P, where P is practically limited only by the number of humans. Thus the earth's current human population has an estimated relative information capacity limit of 10^14 x (7 x 10^9) = 7 x 10^23 synapse-neuron interconnections,"

Edited September 22, 2010 by shelby