RE: We are no different than computers
May 17, 2015 at 9:02 am
(This post was last modified: May 17, 2015 at 9:30 am by The Grand Nudger.)
As far as potential numbers of circuits....I would hesitate to call anything with a discrete value a "potential infinite". There could be very many, yes, but their existence is no indicator of their operation (further, their operation no indicator of their efficacy), and their numbers are finite regardless. As far as how how much para or series processing there could be....I think that's a question that can be misleading, and perhaps less than useful.
As above, some things have a value, how many bits per seconds our brains are capable of handling, for examplee. Anything dumping more than 60 bits a second and we're talking about potential data loss. Which is to say, if our thinking apparatus was dumping 75bytes/s (parallel pro) only one tenth of that would be actively contributing to what we observe and describe as "consciousness" at any given moment. The rest might need to be buffered (imagine the resources on that count). So - whatever- computing is going on, -if- computing is going on, no matter how many parallel implementations are running(and whatever their requirements in architecture may be), there will still be operating parameters, theoretical maxes and mins determined by reference to system architecture (and that's allowing that any value we have set ourselves upon now might one day wind up being wrong). Take 100billion or so neurons, if they only acted as a single, explicit gate, they could potentially be 20 times more powerful than the worlds most robust commercially available computer. I suppose that makes an intuitive sort of sense, because we think to ourselves "Well, of course, look at all that we can do that a computer can't" but a more disturbing question might arise.....look at what computers do that -we- can't. Further, that a neuron is only a single, explicit gate is fantasy, and demonstrably so. The difference in specs between our brains and a modern PC increases exponentially accepting that...and then those areas where we lag behind a digital computer, for example, become even more disturbing. If we are computers...something is clearly lacking in our implementation.
What at first seems full of potential..... begins to look like a particularly shitty job of building a comp system......but that's what we would expect, eh? There's a reason that we build computers out of electronic components as opposed to building them out of leaves (biological material). I'm not saying our brains aren't fantastic, only mentioning that every known implementation of computational architecture, in addition to offering the function and perhaps some benefits over others....comes with inherent limitations. Wondering how much may be going on "in there" is entirely different from assessing how much of what goes on in there is actually a factor in what we observe "out here", though I;d stress that it's likely to be far, far less than most would imagine, off the cuff.
After all, at 60bits per second......consciousness can demonstrably express itself........doesn't take a whole hell of alot of computing to max out -that- pipe, eh?
As above, some things have a value, how many bits per seconds our brains are capable of handling, for examplee. Anything dumping more than 60 bits a second and we're talking about potential data loss. Which is to say, if our thinking apparatus was dumping 75bytes/s (parallel pro) only one tenth of that would be actively contributing to what we observe and describe as "consciousness" at any given moment. The rest might need to be buffered (imagine the resources on that count). So - whatever- computing is going on, -if- computing is going on, no matter how many parallel implementations are running(and whatever their requirements in architecture may be), there will still be operating parameters, theoretical maxes and mins determined by reference to system architecture (and that's allowing that any value we have set ourselves upon now might one day wind up being wrong). Take 100billion or so neurons, if they only acted as a single, explicit gate, they could potentially be 20 times more powerful than the worlds most robust commercially available computer. I suppose that makes an intuitive sort of sense, because we think to ourselves "Well, of course, look at all that we can do that a computer can't" but a more disturbing question might arise.....look at what computers do that -we- can't. Further, that a neuron is only a single, explicit gate is fantasy, and demonstrably so. The difference in specs between our brains and a modern PC increases exponentially accepting that...and then those areas where we lag behind a digital computer, for example, become even more disturbing. If we are computers...something is clearly lacking in our implementation.
What at first seems full of potential..... begins to look like a particularly shitty job of building a comp system......but that's what we would expect, eh? There's a reason that we build computers out of electronic components as opposed to building them out of leaves (biological material). I'm not saying our brains aren't fantastic, only mentioning that every known implementation of computational architecture, in addition to offering the function and perhaps some benefits over others....comes with inherent limitations. Wondering how much may be going on "in there" is entirely different from assessing how much of what goes on in there is actually a factor in what we observe "out here", though I;d stress that it's likely to be far, far less than most would imagine, off the cuff.
After all, at 60bits per second......consciousness can demonstrably express itself........doesn't take a whole hell of alot of computing to max out -that- pipe, eh?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
