4 ms·
May I ask what is the basis of your estimate on the computational capacity of the human brain?
by acro 18y ago
May I ask what is the basis of your estimate on the computational capacity of the human brain?
- timf 18y agoEspecially pointed question since the statement implies someone has crossed the chasm of the physical universe in order to measure this. (since "all of physical universe is less complex than a single human brain" and the physical universe contains around 6.7 billion brains (that we know of))
- lst 18y agoI said "physical" to exclude the misunderstanding.
- ryanwaggoner 18y agoPretty sure you failed.
- timf 18y agoMy point was that if you are restricting the comparison to the physical universe then logically you must be implying the brain extends beyond the physical universe somehow -- since there is more than one brain in the physical universe. Your subsequent statements in this thread confirmed you have this opinion. If true, then it has an undefined and immeasurable complexity. You can't make all these statements about it, you can't measure it, and you have no context to even begin to talk about it. You can't even make assertions about what the measurement of complexity itself would be ("infinitely more" is just as nonsensical as a finite number more because we do not know what the units of a complexity measurement would be -- if "units" even makes sense in the "beyond").
- lst 18y agoIntelligence can't be measured in huge numbers, and every single human brain is infinitely more intelligent than any possible computer. It's not me saying this, but science.
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- smanek 18y agoinfinity You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
- lst 18y agoThe "infinity" metaphor is the best description coming to mind in such cases...
- sgk284 18y agoI think you may have a fundamental misunderstanding of life, the universe, and everything. Suppose we can simulate interactions between atoms nearly perfectly on a computer... then it's just a matter of making an atom-for-atom digital replication of the brain (understanding of course that this is all easier said than done, but all possible). Once that is achieved, we optimize and make it even better by thinking faster and more accurately than we ever could. What are you missing from this? Or is hacker news really starting to be trolled... because I might just cry.
- lst 18y agoWe should suppose? This is not scientific. Please don't fly too high, keep your feet on the ground. We are not talking about theoretic fantasy, here we talk about practical, real world things. What I really can't stand is this believing in human capacities as if it were some kind of god. We all are very, very limited when it comes to create sophisticated things, just look at how long it took us to create the first computers (see note 1). And we already hit many limits, and this is why current hardware is evolving so slooowly... (Maybe your misunderstanding is quite fundamental?) 1) note: millions of millions of years, if you believe 'evolution' theory; thousands of years, of you believe 'creation' theory