←back to thread

593 points gmays | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.439s | source
Show context
earless1 ◴[] No.45772465[source]
So biological garbage collection pauses then? skip sleep, and the brain tries to run gc cycles during runtime. Causing attention and performance latency spikes. Evolution wrote the original JVM.
replies(5): >>45772560 #>>45773351 #>>45776679 #>>45777047 #>>45778878 #
layer8 ◴[] No.45772560[source]
Luckily it doesn’t clear all unreferenced memory, though.
replies(5): >>45772666 #>>45772718 #>>45773046 #>>45773081 #>>45773625 #
ghurtado ◴[] No.45773625[source]
I realize you're making a joke, but there is no such thing as "unreferenced memories", as in, something that is no longer in use and has been removed from the brain.

Every memory your brain has ever produced is still there, even if most are beyond conscious access. Memories quite literally become a permanent part of you.

A lot of people mistakenly think of human memory as a sort of hard drive with limited capacity, with files being deleted to make room for new ones. It's very much not like that.

replies(4): >>45773664 #>>45773783 #>>45773860 #>>45773941 #
pdonis ◴[] No.45773664[source]
If you are implying that human memory has infinite capacity, that's not possible. The human brain is a finite, physical thing. It can't store an infinite amount of data.

If you just mean that human memory has a finite capacity that's much larger than anyone has come close to reaching by storing the memories of a normal human lifetime, that might make sense.

Do you have any references for your statements about memory? I'm not familiar with whatever science there is in this area.

replies(3): >>45773815 #>>45774224 #>>45775057 #
1. standardly ◴[] No.45774224[source]
> The human brain is a finite, physical thing. It can't store an infinite amount of data.

True, but it doesn't really detract from his statement because do we really know what that upper bound even is? I don't think we come close to the theoretical storage limit... So saying "every memory you have is permanently stored" is effectively true, at least true enough for a thought experiment like this. Perhaps when people live to be 200 years old and we know more about the brain we can test this, though.

I used to be weary of learning new, complex things, thinking I'd "lose" old knowledge XD

replies(1): >>45775615 #
2. pdonis ◴[] No.45775615[source]
> I don't think we come close to the theoretical storage limit

That was the point of the second part of my comment--which the person I was responding to said was not relevant to what he meant.