While I agree that we use much more than 10% of our brains, what if it is supposed to mean we use 10% of the brains power? That wouldn't be that odd, we only use a fraction of our bodies physical strength so would it be so odd that we use a fraction of our mental strength?
Well we use a lot of a brain for stuff we dont' even think about like breathing, processing visual data, internal biochemistry ect.. We use a lot more than 10%. So activating 100% would drive you insane because you would be activating every sense in your body and die from a seizure or something.
The brains is already more power full than any computer in the world so putting in a chip means squat. Maybe in 100 years we will be able to develop some wifi interface with our brain that will be able to access some computer that is modified to be able through cloud computing give and receive information. Basically go to armorgames in our head.
The brains is already more power full than any computer in the world so putting in a chip means squat
It might let you focus your brains ability more, which would be cool, but I agree, i dont think we could just stick in some new RAM to our brain and expect results.
Basically go to armorgames in our head.
That would be decent. Im not one for cyborg body parts, but I have to admit a computer in my head would be amazing. Where am I... GOOGLE MAPS... idk this.. GOOGLE SEARCH... who is that film star... GOOGLE IMAGES... what funny clip are you talking about? ... GOOGLE VIDZ.
Google is taking over my brain already, thats why I use new and improved scroogle, it wipes those access logs to get your computer whiter than white.
A computer directly in your head would be unwise. Computers can't engage in parallel processing (that is, doing multiple things at once) the way that the mind can. And the mind is severely limited by the relatively slow speed of chemical messenging; neural synapses simply cannot compete with electrical circuit boards. Point is, a computer in your brain would be both limited by your inability to think fast and the computer's inability to multitask. It would be much better to put a brain into a computer. I don't mean making a computer self aware or whatever, I'm just talking about endowing a computer with the organic ability of multitasking. I'm using multitasking" and "arallel processing" interchangeably, though in reality they are quite differnt. By multitasking, I mean doing mulitple things simotaniously, not rapidly switching between two things. Most personal computer have only one or maybe two processors, and can only do one or two things at once. The human mind can do many, many things at once (I can't find a source to verify how many). Vision alone is a combination of multiple processes.
A computer directly in your head would be unwise. Computers can't engage in parallel processing (that is, doing multiple things at once) the way that the mind can.
Uh hello? Opening tabs? You can do a shit load of things at once on a computer. It's ridiculous.
And the mind is severely limited by the relatively slow speed of chemical messenging; neural synapses simply cannot compete with electrical circuit boards.
Then we shall replace chemical messaging with email!
I think it could work, if it were possible. By blending them together, you have ability to store things within your brain like a binary data bank, be able to think, us logic, and reason things, and have emotion, access the internet (lol probably not but maybe.) The point is you could be one huge walking databank.
Computers can't engage in parallel processing (that is, doing multiple things at once) the way that the mind can.
Yes they can, with a multi core processor and some inventive programming that is very possible.
And the mind is severely limited by the relatively slow speed of chemical messenging; neural synapses simply cannot compete with electrical circuit boards.
Can you explain then why it is predicted to be at least 50 years before we can build a computer with the processing power of the human brain?
Uh hello? Opening tabs? You can do a **** load of things at once on a computer. It's ridiculous.
It doesn't work the same way that your brain does. A computer (unless it has multiple processors) just rapidly switches between two things. Because it can compute so fast, it appears as if the computer is performing both functions at the same time. A lot of personal computers today have two core processors, but this doesn't even come close to the processing power of the mind. Supercomputers exist with large amounts of processors, but I have never seen one in a mac store. Though, as Moe said, that could change in the near future.
Can you explain then why it is predicted to be at least 50 years before we can build a computer with the processing power of the human brain?
This is adding the processing power of the brain to a computer, not the other way around. It is pretty much what I was talking about in my previous post. Like I said, this makes far more sense than trying to put a computer chip into a human mind.
this makes far more sense than trying to put a computer chip into a human mind.
Put the computer can't use logic, it can't feel, it can't use emotion. Ever head the quote, "computers are accurate, fast, and stupid, while humans are inaccurate, slow, and brilliant?" Put them together in a human body, and you can do anything.
Put the computer can't use logic, it can't feel, it can't use emotion. Ever head the quote, "computers are accurate, fast, and stupid, while humans are inaccurate, slow, and brilliant?" Put them together in a human body, and you can do anything.
Story time! One day a geneticist had a great idea. He knew that the roots of carrots were valuable, while the tops were useless. He also knew that the tops of cabbages were valuable, while the roots were worthless. So why not cross the two, and make a cabbage head with carrots for roots? After some careful gene splicing, the scientist created a hybrid "carrage" seed. He planted the seed, and a few weeks later, he had a full blown Carrage plant, with the head of a carrot and the roots of a cabbage.
Point is, putting a computer chip in a human would probably just make the computer slow and inaccurate instead of making the human fast and accurate. Look at it this way: computers are too stupid to understand the complexities of the human thought proccess, and humans are too inaccurate to express their ideas in a way computers can understand. But then again, neither of us can predict the future. I'm just saying that making a computer with vast amounts of processors is far more practical than developing some sort of biological-computer interface. But then again, monkeys already have it figured out.
This is adding the processing power of the brain to a computer, not the other way around. It is pretty much what I was talking about in my previous post. Like I said, this makes far more sense than trying to put a computer chip into a human mind.
That is not what I was talking about. I was talking about what is below.
And the mind is severely limited by the relatively slow speed of chemical messenging; neural synapses simply cannot compete with electrical circuit boards.
The human brain is faster and can process more than any computer in existence today.
The human brain is faster and can process more than any computer in existence today.
It depends on how you look at it. The brain can do more things at once than the computer can. However, the computer can do each individual task much faster than the brain can. This is because nerves have to communicate accross a physical gap (called the synaptic gap) using chemical messengers, usually calcium or sodium ions, or a neurotransmitter. Because these particles must travel across the gap, a neuron can only fire about 200 times per second. A basic CPU, however, can fire about one BILLION times per second. So a computer is about 5 million times faster than a single neuron. Fortunatly, the brain has about 100 billion neurons, which more than makes up for their relatively slow speed. The problem with putting a chip into a brain lies in routing problem of connecting 100 billion neurons to a single computer. Otherwise, the computer would only be "fed" a few bits of information at a time, thereby making it rather pointless. Read this for more information: Brain Speed
When we talk about brain speed and how quickly it can process information, I feel like we're missing something. Whatever consciousness is, it is produced by brain activity - and that's something the activity of a computer chip can't match. With this in mind, I feel like we're trying to compare processes which are inherently dissimilar.
The problem with putting a chip into a brain lies in routing problem of connecting 100 billion neurons to a single computer.
This is sort of what got me thinking about what I said above. But I just have a question: don't we already have chips that be inserted into the brain to either provide or retrieve information? Or maybe these chips are just recording or giving electrical impulses or something like that. All this is bringing me to this question, though: is the "language" the brain is "coded" in able to be translated into something a computer could interpret? We can see the effects of brain activity, sure. But can we see the activity itself?
Yes they can, with a multi core processor and some inventive programming that is very possible.
Each processor is still just handling one task at a time. They can do it at such a fast rate that it can appear to be doing multiple things at once though. This inability is something the human brain doesn't have. We have however been working on new types of computers that are breaking this limitation.
The human brain is highly complex, and its potential far surpasses that which we have seen... There are some who believe that our minds could even temper with reality itself if their full potential was used... However, that is just a theory.
Some scientists say that this is an explanation to why some can have premonitions when they are sleeping. They believe that it is possible that a person could use that extra potential in their brains, though still not the full potential, and that it would make it possible for the brain to access a future memory earlier than it would logically be obtained.
