SRL Archive - NOTA

A neuron can send a message ~1000 times in a second, that means 1000 Hz.
There are ~100 billion neurons in your brains.

That's 1000Hz*100*10^9 = (10^3 * 10^9)Hz = 10^12 Hz = 1000 GHz

1000 GHz versus my 3GHz double-core… And they say computers are faster than brains? Get your facts straight people :rolleyes:

EDIT: I expect Brain will say something very clever…

360 teraflops is the fastest computer. Not faster than the brain…just saying that maybe using a generic computer might not be the best comparison, (unless the source from which you are complaining about is saying PC's are faster).

You can't really compare the brain to a CPU like that though.. Computers are faster at some math operations like 8 times 7 (try doing it… it will take you longer time than it would for a computer) but the brain is extremely good at calculating (example) the trajectory of an object flying through the air.

Who said computers were faster than the brain anyways?

Raw power and actual performance are very different, as the brain is almost as inefficient at using resources as windows.

lol, the human brain IS much faster than even super computers. the reason it doesnt seem that way is because our brain doesnt focus on one thing at a time. so where you have so many total nuerons, you may really only be using like 100 to calculate your math homework.

i heard last yeasr that in 5-7 years computers will be faster than the human brain

maybe it was 10 to 20, i cant really remember. i would google if i wasnt sending this from my phone :p

The brain multitasks too much, you can not focus on one thing. Its hard to fully disect the idea, but when a computer is asked to preform a task, all it does is that. The brain focuses on other things.

The benefit is it allows us to do things in different ways as we create.

For example:
Consider the polynomial
P(x) = 4x4 + 7x3 – 2x2 + 3x1 + 6
Suppose that exponentiation is carried out using multiplications. Two ways to evaluate this polynomial are:

• Brute force method:
P(x) = 4*x*x*x*x + 7*x*x*x – 2*x*x + 3*x + 6
• Horner’s method:
P(x) = (((4*x + 7) * x – 2) * x + 3) * x + 6

Would a computer have figured out Horner's method? No, the computer would have done the brute force, but the brain saw the option for Horner's method and completed it.

But another advantage is that computers focus more and would complete either computation faster than the human brain. How often can you focus on doing 1500/234 without realizing you didn't eat lunch? (Example :P)

Just my 0.02.

Source: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/faculty/beau/CS1027/NOTES/CS1027-017-Analysis-W10.pdf

Where is this computer?! I'll take it on anytime, anywhere!

From: Brain
Where is this computer?! I'll take it on anytime, anywhere!

lol, he couldnt resist this thread, lol he had to post :tongue:

anyways, nava is very correct, our brain uses alot of proccessing to find patterns in life, and when it does it can use the patterns as a shortcut, so instead of 4*4 it may get a "feel" for the pattern/speed of the slope. my examples are horrible, sorry:tongue:

basically our brains have the ability to constantly change or 'self-evolve', which computers cannot yet do. this adds a whole ne dimension to this thread. lol. if you are thinking of which can compute faster, the brain or computer, then currently computers are quickly catching up to the brain, if you are thinking of which is smarter, compuer or brain, then brains will own computers until we can create fully functional learning/smart AI's

As well as using a fraction of neurons, the brain is divided.

http://xkcd.com/604/

This happens because listening to words and typing words (reading/writing/talking too) are both handled by the same part of the brain. While it appears the brain is multitasking a lot, in cases where the same area of the brain is needed, it is really switching from one task to another very rapidly, usually at the cost of speed/accuracy/etc. For example, try reading while listening to classical music, (or anything without lyrics) which is actual multitasking, compared to reading while listening to something with lyrics, which is task switching. (Technically both are actual multitasking if you count breathing etc as a task.)

The computer wouldn't know the bruteforce method, it would have to have been *programmed* for it… If it would find out methods on its own (self-evolve like g0tp0t said). It would most likely come up with a faster easier way to do it then horners method.

The problem is computers can't really teach themselves like humans do…. yet O_o.

When we see computers telling humans to do tasks for them then we'll know who the winner is.

Until then, Brain stomps.

Brains are merely biological computers. Iirc, some people are even trying to use DNA as a biological computer, which is pretty awesome!

DNA computing is being worked on, it will probably be around before Quantum Computing. But I would say that graphene computing is more likely.

ill google and then edit this post saying what dna and quantum compting are, just to make navas post a little clearer. lol i cant be the only one that doesnt already understand.

also when i said that your brain gets a feel for 4*4, i meant you get a feel for the slope of the squares of numbers. for example, if you see 4*4 = 16 and 6*6 = 36 and 9*9 = 81 etc. then your brain sees the pattern and estimates what the square of some numbrer is, instead of doing it the hard way(i dont know how to say that so ill give an example).

if you want the squared of 3 then your brain would do 3^2 or 3^3 whereas without the pattern(the way a computer would have to do it) the calculation would be 3+3+3, which would take longer. remember im talking about estimating. because computers dont estimate/use patterns(until we give them patterns) they get the exact answers.

post if i dont make sense and tell me what could be explained better, i will try to fix it

SPAM: i love this thread, philosophy owns :D

Actually computers can estimate and one of the greatest things about them is they can give fairly intelligent estimates given the correct programming by making use of game theory and the like as well as make these estimates a lot quicker than humans could in many cases (such as weather forecasting).

The DNA computer would be awesome. Now one bit (a quarter of a byte) stores a 0 or 1, with DNA it would store an A, T, G, or C. If we made it of RNA (which would probably be much more complicated and unstable) we would have combinations A, U, G, C, I, +++ many more :P not all of them are actually data-containing stuff like they always are in DNA, but if they could be read as such… That'd be uber.

From: marpis
The DNA computer would be awesome. Now one bit (a quarter of a byte) stores a 0 or 1, with DNA it would store an A, T, G, or C. If we made it of RNA (which would probably be much more complicated and unstable) we would have combinations A, U, G, C, I, +++ many more :P not all of them are actually data-containing stuff like they always are in DNA, but if they could be read as such… That'd be uber.

Don't forget RNA, that has A, C, G, U

From: cycrosism
Don't forget RNA, that has A, C, G, U

Did you even read the whole post? :D

marpis, where are you getting the other bases for RNA? I could have sworn it was made up of A, U, G, and C.

Yeah, where's the I from? Or the "many more?"

From: Nava2
marpis, where are you getting the other bases for RNA? I could have sworn it was made up of A, U, G, and C.

From: i luffs yeww
Yeah, where's the I from? Or the "many more?"

I is for Inosine, which's base is hypoksantine. And there are parts like mi-RNA and several others with some greek letters I don't know about.
Inosine can attach to A, C, and U and is found in the messenger-RNA.