(April 21, 2015 at 10:20 pm)AFTT47 Wrote: If we are not ones and zeros in a bio-computer, what do you think we are? What's special about a brain that sets it apart from a computer aside from complexity?

I certainly don't think our thoughts are ones and zeros. Neural architecture seems to indicate  a much more complex web in any brain activity -- which yes, is complexity. Given the fact that each neuron can receive information from dozens of other neurons, each receiving information from dozens of other neurons -- and given that the brain has a quality known as plasticity, whereby changing the way one thinks can quite literally change the circuitry of the brain -- the decision process in a human strikes me more as a plenary vote of neurons, each with its own tasking and area of concern, rather than a straightforward set of instructions that simply possesses an unusually high number of if/then subroutines, to be run down in discrete digital packets.

Well, if you make the granularity small enough, say molecular level, our biological processes, including brain processes, while not binary, is discrete and therefore digital.

Ones and zeros only is one form of digital, but not the only form.

I think....very often, when people describe something a computer just "couldn;t do"...they're being unimaginative (and the irony here is delicious..in that people are supposed to be pretty damned imaginative).  

(April 22, 2015 at 5:21 am)pocaracas Wrote: Present-day computers are mainly sequential machines.... there's some parallelism, but it's always very limited, when compared to the parallelizing power of analog neuron "computing".
Until we can mimic the millions (more like billions) of parallel processing centers and their interactions with each other, we won't be able to compare our computers with a functioning brain.
Also, it is my guess that, as soon as such a fully parallel machine is turned on, we'll see it behaving almost like a human child, perhaps a baby.... it will require some sort of "sensory input", not just text from a keyboard, but also images... it may become very adept very quickly and not suffer from path degradation like humans do during their teen years... because of that, it may come to suffer from some form of overload...
Desires and feelings could arise, too... oh well, I hear there's a new movie coming to theaters called Ex-Machina... according to the trailer, it does seem to explore some of these questions...

---

Rated R, of course... -.-'

---

Another difference is a fully parallel computer may be designed to be completely generic, or has bespoke components designed to better perform specific anticipated tasks.    That would still be very different from the biological brain.   The biological brain is really a vast network of different components.  Nothing is specifically generic.    Many components are optimized to perform certain useful tasks, but only by chance.  Other components sit there and do nothing, but is available in reserve should some mutation shunt some mental process in its way by accident.   Some are nearly Incapable of performing their assigned task but are jury rigged to keep going.

The human brain is more like the millennium falcon held together by duct tape, than any computer any human could conceptualize clearly enough to design.

Digital sequential computers would be like a 3 stage rocket, and fully parallel computer a star destroyer.

(April 22, 2015 at 11:18 am)Chuck Wrote: The human brain is more like the millennium falcon held together by duct tape, than by any computer any human could conceptualize clearly enough to design.

LOOOL KUDOS to you, sir! You made me laugh more than anyone else, today!

If computers achieve consciousness, it will first come by mimicking the process of biological brains.  There are two ways you can go on this.

1. Computers will one day be capable of faithfully mimicking the way brains work and thus behavior, or,
   
2. Computers will never be capable of mimicking human behaviors and thought.
   

The rest is just speculation.

(April 22, 2015 at 11:06 am)Rhythm Wrote: I think....very often, when people describe something a computer just "couldn;t do"...they're being unimaginative (and the irony here is delicious..in that people are supposed to be pretty damned imaginative).  

Meh. To me that's like saying, "What do you mean HOW did God create the earth from nothing? Use your imagination!" Yeah, I'm trying... and I'm not able to... That's not a point for the other side.

(April 22, 2015 at 2:49 pm)Nestor Wrote:

(April 22, 2015 at 11:06 am)Rhythm Wrote: I think....very often, when people describe something a computer just "couldn;t do"...they're being unimaginative (and the irony here is delicious..in that people are supposed to be pretty damned imaginative).  

Meh. To me that's like saying, "What do you mean HOW did God create the earth from nothing? Use your imagination!" Yeah, I'm trying... and I'm not able to... That's not a point for the other side.

No, it's that many arguments against seem to betray this terribly limited understanding of what digital signal processing can do. When people hear "computer",all they seem to think of is a for loop with an if query that says if happy then smile. As a former high end audio nut it reminds me of all the arguments why PCM can't capture the true essence of music and only vinyl can.

Except in most cases, the difference between what computer can do on the one hand, and what human brain have been perceived to do on the other, seem to lie mainly in differing human perceptions of what we do vs what computer does, not in clearly demonstrable relevant difference in principle of how the things are actually do in computers and in humans.

@Chuck

huh? I don't understand what you mean