3 ms·

So the human brain has about 10^11 neurons and about 10^4 synapses per neuron. Naively representing the state of each synapse with one byte requires 10^15 byte

So the human brain has about 10^11 neurons and about 10^4 synapses per neuron. Naively representing the state of each synapse with one byte requires 10^15 bytes that's about 500,000 PCs. But neurons aren't necessarily the optimal substrate for "neural" computation. They have a cycle time of about 100 Hz. Electronics are potentially a factor of 10^8 faster. Neurons also have a lot of noise which surely reduces their information transmission capacity. Also there are major constraints on the neural tissue involving power consumption and stability against siezures. Also there are vast sections of the brain e.g. the cerebellum which are apparently devoted to problems like stabilizing posture and making smooth movements which can be solved much easier with electronic controls. It's very plausible that we could achieve a factor of 100 or even 1000 over the brain. The bottleneck is human imagination; we don't have a clue how the thing works.

lst 18y ago
That's not the point. The human brain is quite "infinitely" interconnected, and this is something which not only would be really, really hard to solve with a physical machine: it's simply impossible. I understand the fascination of a real super computer, but it's simply nothing compared to a single human brain...
- anamax 18y ago
  > The human brain is quite "infinitely" interconnected, and this is something which not only would be really, really hard to solve with a physical machine: it's simply impossible. Hmm. How does this "infinitely interconnected" thing work if not by physical means? (In physical, I include electromagnetic waves without a dedicated conductor, not just "wires".)
  - lst 18y ago
    Yes, you are always free to misunderstand. The interesting thing is: some do, some do not. (We have physics, chemistry, and others, exactly to distinguish different levels...)
    - anamax 18y ago
      I understood you to say that parts in the brain communicate by something other than physical means. Is that where I went wrong? If some of the communications are not by physical means, how does the "not physical means" communication work? If all of the communications are by physical means, how does the brain have "infinite" interconnect? Am I wrong in believing that one can't have infinite connectivity with physical means?
lst 18y ago
Let me explicitly repeat your statement: You say that the human brain would (in theory) be able to create something more intelligent than itself? (Are you aware of the irony?)
- nebula 18y ago
  While it might be an irony, there is no reason why it is not possible. If you follow evolution, that's how we came into being in the first place. Though there was no specific entity working with that explicit goal in the case of evolution.
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
  - lst 18y ago
    You say "evolution" as it were a fact -- but it isn't, it's a theory, I hope you know this. Everything that exists must have its cause, and in history it never happened once that something less intelligent caused something more intelligent. No single human understands his own brain. That fact already tells us that there must be a cause outside of humans. So, the "creation" theory make more sense than the "evolution" theory.
- lallysingh 18y ago
  Hmm, I can use my physical strength to build an engine stronger than myself... Are you aware of the empty rhetoric?
trominos 18y ago
Preface: I'm not particularly well schooled in either neuroscience or in the mechanics of microprocessors. However, I'm very close to certain that your post is basically a lot of hand-waving that is ultimately not only poorly reasoned but also actually incorrect. - - - The question we're trying to answer is basically, "What's the computational capacity of the brain?" But that's not really a good question to work with, because "computational capacity" isn't well-defined. [Actually, I'm not sure about that. I know that either it's not well-defined, or its definition is something that's clearly not what we want in this situation.] So let's ask something that we can actually reason about, like, "Assuming infinite memory, roughly how many floating point operations per second would a computer need to be able to execute in order to direct a human body in a way that's indistinguishable from what a real person does -- in real time?" And, okay, we really only want the brain's conscious thought and maybe some of its unconscious thought, but it's hard to make a well-defined question involving just those things, and I doubt that the answer to our question will be more than a few orders of magnitude off of what we're really after. - - - Anyway, your post does a really, really bad job of answering that question (or anything like it). Your worst offense: > "So the human brain has about 10^11 neurons and about 10^4 synapses per neuron. Naively representing the state of each synapse with one byte requires 10^15 bytes that's about 500,000 PCs." Come on. Did the fact that you had to use the word "byte" not tip you off? YOU'RE DISCUSSING MEMORY. Nobody cares about memory, because the amount of memory needed to store the brain's state is vastly less than the number of operations needed to simulate its function in real time. I seriously am not able to articulate how frustrated I am that at least 12 people felt justified in upvoting you without taking the time to process the first two sentences of your post. Before I go, another treat: > "Electronics are potentially a factor of 10^8 faster." No. Electronics are a factor of 10^8 "faster", when "faster" is taken to mean "more rapid in executing a cycle." Which is an absolutely pointless irrelevent piece of shit statistic. What the fuck. - - - Anyway, let me wrap up this post by actually answering the above question as best we can, given the current state of scientific understanding (or, more precisely, my understanding of that state of understanding): There are on the order of 10^10 neurons and on the order of 10^11 glial cells in the adult human brain. These cells are directed by untold numbers of chemoattractants. We have no good theoretical model for the behavior of these cells in huge numbers of situations. Therefore, WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING IDEA how much processing power it would take to simulate the brain's macro function. We can put an upper bound on it: we know that if we could simulate every atom in the brain to a reasonable degree of accuracy, we'd get human behavior. Obviously the number of FLOPS it would take to do such a thing is unreachable. And beyond that, I don't think it's fair to say we know anything at all.

lst 18y ago

That's not the point. The human brain is quite "infinitely" interconnected, and this is something which not only would be really, really hard to solve with a physical machine: it's simply impossible. I understand the fascination of a real super computer, but it's simply nothing compared to a single human brain...

anamax 18y ago
> The human brain is quite "infinitely" interconnected, and this is something which not only would be really, really hard to solve with a physical machine: it's simply impossible. Hmm. How does this "infinitely interconnected" thing work if not by physical means? (In physical, I include electromagnetic waves without a dedicated conductor, not just "wires".)
- lst 18y ago
  Yes, you are always free to misunderstand. The interesting thing is: some do, some do not. (We have physics, chemistry, and others, exactly to distinguish different levels...)
  - anamax 18y ago
    I understood you to say that parts in the brain communicate by something other than physical means. Is that where I went wrong? If some of the communications are not by physical means, how does the "not physical means" communication work? If all of the communications are by physical means, how does the brain have "infinite" interconnect? Am I wrong in believing that one can't have infinite connectivity with physical means?

lst 18y ago

Let me explicitly repeat your statement: You say that the human brain would (in theory) be able to create something more intelligent than itself? (Are you aware of the irony?)

nebula 18y ago
While it might be an irony, there is no reason why it is not possible. If you follow evolution, that's how we came into being in the first place. Though there was no specific entity working with that explicit goal in the case of evolution.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- lst 18y ago
  You say "evolution" as it were a fact -- but it isn't, it's a theory, I hope you know this. Everything that exists must have its cause, and in history it never happened once that something less intelligent caused something more intelligent. No single human understands his own brain. That fact already tells us that there must be a cause outside of humans. So, the "creation" theory make more sense than the "evolution" theory.
lallysingh 18y ago
Hmm, I can use my physical strength to build an engine stronger than myself... Are you aware of the empty rhetoric?

trominos 18y ago

Preface: I'm not particularly well schooled in either neuroscience or in the mechanics of microprocessors. However, I'm very close to certain that your post is basically a lot of hand-waving that is ultimately not only poorly reasoned but also actually incorrect. - - - The question we're trying to answer is basically, "What's the computational capacity of the brain?" But that's not really a good question to work with, because "computational capacity" isn't well-defined. [Actually, I'm not sure about that. I know that either it's not well-defined, or its definition is something that's clearly not what we want in this situation.] So let's ask something that we can actually reason about, like, "Assuming infinite memory, roughly how many floating point operations per second would a computer need to be able to execute in order to direct a human body in a way that's indistinguishable from what a real person does -- in real time?" And, okay, we really only want the brain's conscious thought and maybe some of its unconscious thought, but it's hard to make a well-defined question involving just those things, and I doubt that the answer to our question will be more than a few orders of magnitude off of what we're really after. - - - Anyway, your post does a really, really bad job of answering that question (or anything like it). Your worst offense: > "So the human brain has about 10^11 neurons and about 10^4 synapses per neuron. Naively representing the state of each synapse with one byte requires 10^15 bytes that's about 500,000 PCs." Come on. Did the fact that you had to use the word "byte" not tip you off? YOU'RE DISCUSSING MEMORY. Nobody cares about memory, because the amount of memory needed to store the brain's state is vastly less than the number of operations needed to simulate its function in real time. I seriously am not able to articulate how frustrated I am that at least 12 people felt justified in upvoting you without taking the time to process the first two sentences of your post. Before I go, another treat: > "Electronics are potentially a factor of 10^8 faster." No. Electronics are a factor of 10^8 "faster", when "faster" is taken to mean "more rapid in executing a cycle." Which is an absolutely pointless irrelevent piece of shit statistic. What the fuck. - - - Anyway, let me wrap up this post by actually answering the above question as best we can, given the current state of scientific understanding (or, more precisely, my understanding of that state of understanding): There are on the order of 10^10 neurons and on the order of 10^11 glial cells in the adult human brain. These cells are directed by untold numbers of chemoattractants. We have no good theoretical model for the behavior of these cells in huge numbers of situations. Therefore, WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING IDEA how much processing power it would take to simulate the brain's macro function. We can put an upper bound on it: we know that if we could simulate every atom in the brain to a reasonable degree of accuracy, we'd get human behavior. Obviously the number of FLOPS it would take to do such a thing is unreachable. And beyond that, I don't think it's fair to say we know anything at all.