This is based on the fallacious premise that the limitations of the human brain are that it "doesn't store enough bits" or that those "bits" aren't getting stor

This is based on the fallacious premise that the limitations of the human brain are that it "doesn't store enough bits" or that those "bits" aren't getting stored permanently enough. In fact the human brain is a much denser information storage and processor than anything we've yet built. You don't think that, if it were actually useful for the brain, that nature could not have built a reliable information storage that rarely loses data throughout a person's lifetime and copies it faithfully? Look at DNA. That's a place where such a thing is useful. In a brain experiencing the ever-changing world, totally permanent storage is not useful, in fact it's counter-productive. I should know - I have eidetic memory and near-total recall, and I can barely function sometimes because I can't sort out what's relevant to a situation from details that are not relevant. The reason normal memory is fallible and discards a lot of detail is that that is important for thinking. Which by the way leads to another fallacy of ideas like the one in this article: data != information, and more data != better thinking Even if such a device could be made - and it cannot; how would you connect it? There is not one "memory link" in the brain like some kind of freakin' USB port that you could reverse engineer a serial code for - even if it could be done, it would actually make things worse for you, not better.