4 ms·
One is saying how much computers use of a global resource pool, the other is how much brains use of their host body. They're completely different things so it
by peeters 8y ago
One is saying how much computers use of a global resource pool, the other is how much brains use of their host body. They're completely different things so it doesn't make sense to compare those two percentages.
If you wanted to compare them, cite the percent that the CPU uses of its PSU, or cite the percent that human brains use of global energy consumption. Otherwise they're completely different things that have no meaning in relation to each other.
- mcbits 8y agoOne is viewing society as a "body" with computers being its "brain". The other is viewing the human body as a "body" with its brain being its "brain". The comparison is of the energy used by each "brain" relative to the total energy used by its "body". The comparison is valid if you accept the analogy, although I think you could easily dispute the analogy. E.g. you could just as easily view the network of humans in a society as its "brain" and all the things we build (including computers) as its "body".
- pessimizer 8y ago> you could just as easily view the network of humans in a society as its "brain" You could far more easily view the brains of humans in a society as its "brains."
- devmacrile 8y agoExactly. It's a meaningless and even misleading analogy. If forced to draw a comparison, you could maybe talk about the energy dissipation of a single neuron and compare that to, say, the energy dissipation of a single transistor. And in that case, considering a human brain is powered by something on the order of 10^10 neurons, the energy efficiency of the brain comes out looking pretty good.