16 May 05
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_networks
Comparison of biological and artificial neural networks
(scroll down)
In some comparisons between the brain and computers, the following calculation is made: There are billions of neurons in the human brain; estimates differ and there are individual differences, some suggest about 2×1012 neurons. Since the relaxation time of these neurons is about 10 ms, this could amount to a processing speed of 100 Hz. The whole brain could therefore have a processing power of roughly 2×1014 logical operations per second. To compare, a 64-bit PowerPC 970 processor at a frequency of 3 GHz corresponds to 2×1011 logical operations per second, making the brain roughly one thousand times as powerful as a current high-end consumer PC. However, this comparison is extremely speculative. The working of biological neural networks is not well understood; it is not clear that anything like the "logical operations" performed by a computer actually occur in biological neural networks.
16 May 05
Originally posted by zeeblebotDo you think, that human reasoning and understanding is the same
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_networks
Comparison of biological and artificial neural networks
(scroll down)
In some comparisons between the brain and computers, the following calculation is made: There are billions of neurons in the human brain; estimates differ and there are individual differe ...[text shortened]... "logical operations" performed by a computer actually occur in biological neural networks.
thing as putting input into a computer and getting an output? Do
you see it as apples and oranges?
Kelly
16 May 05
2 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaDidn't you ask me to show you the metaphysical if I believed in it?
[b]Okay, define non-metaphysical, what is it you are
claiming we are, and are not? I believe this is where
I’m missing your point.
I define metaphysical as a phenomenon that cannot be understood or come to be understood by science. ...[text shortened]... architecture but I have no reason to believe it can't be done.
[/b]
If it is as you describe, once it is shown it no longer is metaphysical
now is it?
So how would you know if it is true or not; that our understanding is
much more than pure process and voltages or whatever is moving
through our brains?
Can you tell me about our thought processes and how they can be
replicable? Describe in some detail high level what they are, what
reason and understanding is within our brains if you don't mind.
Kelly
16 May 05
Originally posted by KellyJay1 + 1 != 2
Do you think, that human reasoning and understanding is the same
thing as putting input into a computer and getting an output? Do
you see it as apples and oranges?
Kelly
1 apple + 1 orange != 2 oranges
at some point, i think engineers will be able to simulate human reasoning in a computer. i'm not sure they haven't already done something like that; using computers to create new algorithms, etc.
but no real economic reason to do so, maybe, so it might not happen for a while.
(would like to say more but got to go for now.)
16 May 05
Originally posted by zeeblebotThey simulate now, we can even call it learning as some chess
1 + 1 != 2
1 apple + 1 orange != 2 oranges
at some point, i think engineers will be able to simulate human reasoning in a computer. i'm not sure they haven't already done something like that; using computers to create new algorithms, etc.
but no real economic reason to do so, maybe, so it might not happen for a while.
(would like to say more but got to go for now.)
programs get better with each games they play. It is still for the
computer simply a matter of programing, not understanding.
It isn't for the comupter a 1 or 2 or an apple or orange, those
are simply outputs for our understanding. Inside the computer
it is simpy voltages being passed back and forth, 1 and 0 or
high and low voltages nothing more.
Kelly
16 May 05
Originally posted by KellyJayinside our brains it is similar, but analog instead of binary, highly parallel and networked instead of 32-bit-wide datapaths / mostly sequential programming.
... Inside the computer
it is simpy voltages being passed back and forth, 1 and 0 or
high and low voltages nothing more.
Kelly
now that computers are getting a lot cheaper, i wonder at what point will we have a true simulation of the human brain?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron
NeuroWiki: http://www.ifi.unizh.ch/~andel/neurowiki/nw.cgi
16 May 05
Robert A. Heinlein's "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress": massive computer given increasing responsibility over management of moon colony becomes self-aware.
Frederick Pohl's Heechee books (Beyond the Blue Event Horizon)? a bit part is played by the protaganist's psychiatrist, a computer program that uses A. Einstein as it's avatar.
16 May 05
Originally posted by KellyJayDidn't you ask me to show you the metaphysical if I believed in it?
Didn't you ask me to show you the metaphysical if I believed in it?
If it is as you describe, once it is shown it no longer is metaphysical
now is it?
So how would you know if it is true or not; that our understanding is
much more than pure process and voltages or whatever is moving
through our brains?
Can you tell me about our thought processe ...[text shortened]... el what they are, what
reason and understanding is within our brains if you don't mind.
Kelly
No, you asked me to prove it didn't exist and I said the burden of proof was on you. I know you can't prove it, as well.
If it is as you describe, once it is shown it no longer is metaphysical
now is it?
No. Observability is not understandment or the possibility of it.
So how would you know if it is true or not; that our understanding is
much more than pure process and voltages or whatever is moving
through our brains?
By advances in science.
Can you tell me about our thought processes and how they can be
replicable? Describe in some detail high level what they are, what
reason and understanding is within our brains if you don't mind.
If I knew I would be winning Nobel prizes.
16 May 05
Originally posted by zeeblebotI disagree; inside our brains quite a bit is taking place. Our
inside our brains it is similar, but analog instead of binary, highly parallel and networked instead of 32-bit-wide datapaths / mostly sequential programming.
now that computers are getting a lot cheaper, i wonder at what point will we have a true simulation of the human brain?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron
NeuroWiki: http://www.ifi.unizh.ch/~andel/neurowiki/nw.cgi
understanding is much more than a simple high or low voltage
passing through a circuit. There is no real comparison, we don't
even really have a solid grasp on what is going on and why.
So making comparisons saying it is the same thing isn't really
valid in my opinion. Our thinking, our reasoning, our
understanding, our dreams, our hopes, all that we
contemplate are much more than a pattern of high and low
voltages flowing through the circuitry of a CPU.
Kelly
17 May 05
Originally posted by KellyJayposit a simulation of the human brain, constructed on a binary computer. each neuron composed of thousands of bits, but simulating a human neuron. why shouldn't the simulation achieve consciousness, if it was made to be close enough to a true brain?
I disagree; inside our brains quite a bit is taking place. Our
understanding is much more than a simple high or low voltage
passing through a circuit. ... Our thinking, our reasoning, our
understanding, our dreams, our hopes, all that we
contemplate are much more than a pattern of high and low
voltages flowing through the circuitry of a CPU.
Kelly
----
a whole page on-topic (minus the "computers" part)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
(scroll down)
"The Conscious Self and the brain
There is a neural link between the left and right hemispheres of the brain, known as the corpus callosum. This link is sometimes surgically severed to control severe seizures in epilepsy patients. Tests of these patients have shown that after the link is completely severed, each hemisphere possesses its own sense of self and each has a separate awareness from the other. It is as if two separate minds now share the same skull, but both still represent themselves as a single "I" to the outside world."
two souls, one brain?
17 May 05
Originally posted by zeeblebotposit a simulation of the human brain, constructed on a binary computer. each neuron composed of thousands of bits, but simulating a human neuron. why shouldn't the simulation achieve consciousness, if it was made to be close enough to a true brain?
posit a simulation of the human brain, constructed on a binary computer. each neuron composed of thousands of bits, but simulating a human neuron. why shouldn't the simulation achieve consciousness, if it was made to be close enough to a true brain?
----
a whole page on-topic (minus the "computers" part)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consci ...[text shortened]... ll represent themselves as a single "I" to the outside world."
two souls, one brain?
Close how? There are several ways we can get it close, looks, ciruits,
chemical make up, and so on. What is it you think is required?
Kelly
18 May 05
Originally posted by KellyJayThe problem with your position is that you assume intelligence is not a result of physical phenomena like voltages etc. I think it's pretty clear that intelligence and the physical world are quite closely interrelated. In fact there's no reason I am aware of to assume there's any other influence other than those of the physical world on the existence of intelligence.
I understand that, and I'm saying we cannot get there from here.
Meaning there is nothing about computers now that make me think it
will ever be possible under the current make up of computers. There
is no AI today, there is only programmed responces. Even if some
of the programs are highly complex, it isn't really intelligence for the
computer. It i ...[text shortened]... hip makers on display creating
a useful tool, a eletronic abacus. (thank you by the way)
Kelly
I think you prefer to think based on your religion there is some sort of non physical aspect to intelligence, but this is bias on your part. I don't think there is any scientific reason to think this.
18 May 05
Originally posted by zeeblebotYour post is difficult to understand because it's a copy paste job and it does not include the superscripts. I'd like to clear that up for other readers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_networks
Comparison of biological and artificial neural networks
(scroll down)
In some comparisons between the brain and computers, the following calculation is made: There are billions of neurons in the human brain; estimates differ and there are individual differe ...[text shortened]... "logical operations" performed by a computer actually occur in biological neural networks.
In some comparisons between the brain and computers, the following calculation is made: There are billions of neurons in the human brain; estimates differ and there are individual differences, some suggest about 2×10^12 neurons. Since the relaxation time of these neurons is about 10 ms, this could amount to a processing speed of 100 Hz. The whole brain could therefore have a processing power of roughly 2×10^14 logical operations per second. To compare, a 64-bit PowerPC 970 processor at a frequency of 3 GHz corresponds to 2×10^11 logical operations per second, making the brain roughly one thousand times as powerful as a current high-end consumer PC. However, this comparison is extremely speculative. The working of biological neural networks is not well understood; it is not clear that anything like the "logical operations" performed by a computer actually occur in biological neural networks.
18 May 05
Originally posted by KellyJayThat's a hard question to answer. I think human understanding is probably a result of purely physical phenomena. What that phenomena are I don't know as I have not looked into the way the brain works and how it relates to mind. So I think the best answer to your question is that it's apples and apples in essence.
Do you think, that human reasoning and understanding is the same
thing as putting input into a computer and getting an output? Do
you see it as apples and oranges?
Kelly