Brain vs computer

  • 8 Replies
  • 2393 Views
*

unreality

  • Starship Trooper
  • *******
  • 443
Brain vs computer
« on: November 23, 2017, 06:36:03 am »
[Deleted]
« Last Edit: November 26, 2019, 05:29:17 pm by unreality »

*

Korrelan

  • Trusty Member
  • ***********
  • Eve
  • *
  • 1454
  • Look into my eyes! WOAH!
    • YouTube
Re: Brain vs computer
« Reply #1 on: November 23, 2017, 10:19:36 am »
It’s interesting when people use the computer/ brain analogy.

The power of the brain doesn’t reside in its processing power; it’s the parallelism and data representation.

I've used this analogy before but I’ll use it again.

As a task you have to design a digital system that can calculate the exact volume of matter comprising an object.  How would you go about the task? To simplify the task lets stick to the objects external faces, let’s choose a fairly complex shape like a kitchen colander.

So with a digital system you would first have to get the 3D surface information into a computer, probably using a laser scanner. Then write and apply complex volumetric calculations to arrive at a volume figure. 

Now you have to achieve the same task but this time the system doesn't have to be digital.  So obviously it’s a bucket of water, measure the level, insert the object and measure again.  This method is infinitely faster and more accurate to arrive at the same volume figure.

So what did the calculation?

It’s a kin to swarm intelligence, billions of simple dumb water molecules just doing their thing.  It’s the side effect of the system that produces the required volume figure not the interactions of the molecules/ bonds. You could use sand or any fine substance to achieve similar results.

It would be easier to simulate sand in the computer and leverage the same side effects to ascertain the volume than write the complex volumetric functions required to fit any shape.

This is the difference between the brain and a computer.  The brain leverage's billions of neurons that interact in fairly simple ways… in parallel.

This is why my AGI runs on a neuromorphic simulation/ wetware emulation.  Our brains are not digital, but we can use a digital computer to simulate a neuromorphic processor/ brain and then run an AGI on the simulation, that extra layer of abstraction is extremely important.

 :)
It thunk... therefore it is!...    /    Project Page    /    KorrTecx Website

*

ranch vermin

  • Not much time left.
  • Terminator
  • *********
  • 947
  • Its nearly time!
Re: Brain vs computer
« Reply #2 on: November 23, 2017, 01:11:41 pm »
what about insects, they have 10,000 braincells and ur computer seems to outclass them,  but take a cockroach and they are amazing creatures that exhibit soul,    how do u write that into a computer?

*

ivan.moony

  • Trusty Member
  • ************
  • Bishop
  • *
  • 1723
    • mind-child
Re: Brain vs computer
« Reply #3 on: November 23, 2017, 01:59:45 pm »
Quote
How would you go about the task?
The Universe as one big stateful machine. We can use some subset of it to build up processors that calculate things in their own way. Then we can optimize the processors, like implementing volume-by-fluid measure to get  things computed faster. The thing is, the less optimization takes place, the more the processor looks like interpreter inside interpreter (our artificial processor inside natural one, the Universe itself), and that is slow. The universe itself seems to run pretty fast, with a vast of data, so we should use it to optimize our artificial processors as much as we can.

Imagine what would happen if we could have an access to all the computing libraries that run the Universe itself. How much would we benefit from it? Just a peak into quantum computer design gives us insight in how fast parallel data results could be computed at the same picosecond. I wonder what would we have at disposition if we would know Theory of Everything? What particles could we use as a basis for computation? And would we have the access to the native computing libraries that compute the Universe itself?

An interpreter inside an interpreter was never a good idea. We should find a way to compile our code to "some" language of the Universe.

*

unreality

  • Starship Trooper
  • *******
  • 443
Re: Brain vs computer
« Reply #4 on: November 23, 2017, 03:15:22 pm »
[Deleted]
« Last Edit: November 26, 2019, 05:29:25 pm by unreality »

*

unreality

  • Starship Trooper
  • *******
  • 443
Re: Brain vs computer
« Reply #5 on: November 23, 2017, 03:19:49 pm »
[Deleted]
« Last Edit: November 26, 2019, 05:29:31 pm by unreality »

*

unreality

  • Starship Trooper
  • *******
  • 443
Re: Brain vs computer
« Reply #6 on: November 23, 2017, 04:43:24 pm »
[Deleted]
« Last Edit: November 26, 2019, 05:29:36 pm by unreality »

*

unreality

  • Starship Trooper
  • *******
  • 443
Re: Brain vs computer
« Reply #7 on: November 26, 2017, 05:47:19 pm »
[Deleted]
« Last Edit: November 26, 2019, 05:29:42 pm by unreality »

*

Art

  • At the end of the game, the King and Pawn go into the same box.
  • Trusty Member
  • **********************
  • Colossus
  • *
  • 5865
Re: Brain vs computer
« Reply #8 on: November 28, 2017, 09:13:10 pm »
Many years ago I purchased one of the first Fidelity Electronics Chess Challenger 10 chess computers.
Beautiful walnut wood around a black and gold metal board and Red LED's to indicate Positions.

It had 10 levels. I started at 3 and was able to beat it. When I advanced to higher levels, the computer would take longer before making a move.
At Level 7 it took quite a while after the opening book moves but played a very competitive game and was difficult to beat.

Eventually after a year or so, I was able to beat it maybe once or twice out of 20 times but gameplay took so long that I opted to go back to playing around level 4 or 5 just to be able to play a fairly fast but enjoyable game. I usually won but that was really not my point.
(one doesn't improve by playing someone weaker).

While that was in the 1970's it was State-of-the-Art for it's time. Today's FREE desktop Chess games can blow me away and at the lower levels!!
If I pitted my Chess Challenger 10 against one of these Desktop games, I'll wager it would also lose! Technology and the game searching techniques definitely outclass anything from even 5 or 10 years ago!

What then does that say for the advancement of the brains in our everyday items, not to mention chatbots, A.I. and laboratory created robots?
In the world of AI, it's the thought that counts!

 


OpenAI Speech-to-Speech Reasoning Demo
by ivan.moony (AI News )
Today at 01:31:53 pm
Say good-bye to GPUs...
by MikeB (AI News )
March 23, 2024, 09:23:52 am
Google Bard report
by ivan.moony (AI News )
February 14, 2024, 04:42:23 pm
Elon Musk's xAI Grok Chatbot
by MikeB (AI News )
December 11, 2023, 06:26:33 am
Nvidia Hype
by 8pla.net (AI News )
December 06, 2023, 10:04:52 pm
How will the OpenAI CEO being Fired affect ChatGPT?
by 8pla.net (AI News )
December 06, 2023, 09:54:25 pm
Independent AI sovereignties
by WriterOfMinds (AI News )
November 08, 2023, 04:51:21 am
LLaMA2 Meta's chatbot released
by 8pla.net (AI News )
October 18, 2023, 11:41:21 pm

Users Online

307 Guests, 0 Users

Most Online Today: 343. Most Online Ever: 2369 (November 21, 2020, 04:08:13 pm)

Articles