15 ms·

Yes. While I agree with the idea that brains are extremely efficient, especially at certain tasks like image recognition or any kind of pattern identification,

by slx26 8y ago

Yes. While I agree with the idea that brains are extremely efficient, especially at certain tasks like image recognition or any kind of pattern identification, I also thought about what you said, and I was like: when doing mathematical operations, I'd be more efficient riding a bicycle to charge a battery that powers a computer which then does the operations, than doing them by myself with my brain. That's... really weird. And there are so many tasks at which computers seem way more efficient than I could possibly be. EDIT: I guess someone downvoted you for apparently conflating speed and efficiency, but I still think the point stands.

trashtester 8y ago
It doesn't matter if you look at speed (seconds/operation) of efficiency (joules/operation). For most mathematical operations, a computer cpu will outperform a human brain by many orders of magnitudes. This is both true and a somewhat irrelevant. It is a bit like saying that a cpu can run recursive, non-parallelizable algorithms faster and more efficiently than a GPU, even if the GPU has more flops. The GPU optimized to run a few types of computation very quickly, and is very slow on other tasks. This applies to the human brain as well, and to a much greater degree.
raxxorrax 8y ago
I have implemented a stereoscopic vision once (1 angled camera and projector, not 2 cameras, but details...). It worked and the quality of the results could reasonably be scaled with additional computing power (and general hardware). While I wouldn't claim that the setup was very sophisticated, it worked reliable at least. But it doesn't even come close to the little nub in the back of your skull. Matching minuscule differences and quantifying these in images probably uses a lot of processing power, indifferent of the algorithms involved. It doesn't only eat you CPU, it would do the same with your memory. So yes, the brain is pretty good with images. But I expect it to be good at other tasks too that doesn't involve the visual cortex. You might not remember what you have eaten today morning, but there must be at least some form of reliable memory in your brain. And you do complex, high-speed mathematical calculations that include basic algebraic calculus. Just maybe not those you want.

by slx26 8y ago

trashtester 8y ago

It doesn't matter if you look at speed (seconds/operation) of efficiency (joules/operation). For most mathematical operations, a computer cpu will outperform a human brain by many orders of magnitudes. This is both true and a somewhat irrelevant. It is a bit like saying that a cpu can run recursive, non-parallelizable algorithms faster and more efficiently than a GPU, even if the GPU has more flops. The GPU optimized to run a few types of computation very quickly, and is very slow on other tasks. This applies to the human brain as well, and to a much greater degree.

raxxorrax 8y ago

I have implemented a stereoscopic vision once (1 angled camera and projector, not 2 cameras, but details...). It worked and the quality of the results could reasonably be scaled with additional computing power (and general hardware). While I wouldn't claim that the setup was very sophisticated, it worked reliable at least. But it doesn't even come close to the little nub in the back of your skull. Matching minuscule differences and quantifying these in images probably uses a lot of processing power, indifferent of the algorithms involved. It doesn't only eat you CPU, it would do the same with your memory. So yes, the brain is pretty good with images. But I expect it to be good at other tasks too that doesn't involve the visual cortex. You might not remember what you have eaten today morning, but there must be at least some form of reliable memory in your brain. And you do complex, high-speed mathematical calculations that include basic algebraic calculus. Just maybe not those you want.