→ STOP SOPA BEFORE IT DESTROYS THE WEB ←

It would beat the Bulldozer

Dunno.
Not very well, I assume. Got to get rid of all that bloatware.

Well we're good at walking and figuring out what we're looking at.

Recognition of objects, logical choices, etc would be much better, but mathematical computation would be fucking terrible.

For this reason, computer and software architecture would (obviously) have to change a LOT

K computer would still win.

(op is a fag)

I vaguely recall that scientists recently made a supercomputer that was about as intelligent as a cat.

So we'd do pretty damn well.

Remember our brain does more than just formulate witty remarks to write on the internet. Everything from keeping the body alive to coordinating fine motor skills is handled by the brain.

>>21649103
You have to realize that (1) for the most part those scientists had no idea wtf they were doing (remember that the brain is still heavily unknown) and (2) the brain is specialized for different things.

Directly comparing a human brian and a processor doesn't really make any fucking sense. They are so vastly different.

A brain might be significantly 'more powerful' than any CPU ever seen, but I'm not sure that means it would be good at what a CPU is required to do in a computer.

Multicores would fail so hard.
The human brain can do many things really fast and all at the same time. It can process things like: keep your heart beating, breath in and out, process over 1 billion nerve endings at the same time with each one giving different signals, translate what is being seen from 2 eyes/cameras (understanding things like depth, color, meaning of the images if dangerous/helpful/food, ect...), process chemicals in the body and brain while producing new ones and how much and in which doses, understand levels of hunger/sleep/thirst, control mood, heal the body on a molecule level of both damage and illness, understand smell, understand taste, regulate balance of standing/moving, ect... and this is just by chewing gum while walking down the street, all in the 'background' of your brains processing power.
A multicore can barely do a few things a once, and nothing to the degree of this difficulty. Sure, it can crunch numbers faster then the brain, but thats it. The human brain has to be so many things at once and can't at any point stop or you could die/go into a coma.

>If a human brain could be harnessed as a processor, how would it perform against today's multicores?

Ummm, depends on the task?
Our brains don't have logic gates or instruction sets. Thus, shit like math will still be MUCH slower, but shit like telling the difference between a flat cable and a rounded cable from a set distance using digital sensors would be BLAZINGLY fast on a brain, and terribly slow on a processor.

>>21649177
You think your brain is bad in math when it really isn't. It's bad in static numbers.

well, can you perform extremely complex mathematical calculations in a few seconds?

there ya go.

>>21649066
>logical choices
>much better
>human brain
What the fuck are you on about?

>>21649103
It wasn't a cat, your talking about Lucy, Lucy, The Orang-Utan Robot http://radio-weblogs.com/0105910/2004/03/19.html

>>21649203

what about them idiot savants that can do amazing math shit (but not much els).

I think a human brain could be configured to do math very well.

>>21649150
True. And then there's the's issue of multi-core vs single core processing. Do human beings think in parallel or in a serial way?

I know that humans seem generally capable of multi-tasking, but studies seem to indicate that the human brain isn't actually structured for multi-tasking. We just seem capable of it because we're great at switching between tasks rapidly(1). The effect is more pronounced among older people(2), suggesting that it there is an element of "training" that you can do to be an effective multi-tasker, but the fact remains that it seems like our conscious thought processing isn't parallel.

So if you compare a 32-core CPU or a highly parallel GPU against a human brain, one would necessarily have an advantage depending on the task you assign it.

Still, people can breathe and write at the same time, so maybe certain parts of the brain can function in parallel. I'm sure someone has studied this, but it wouldn't surprise me too much if we just don't have a clue wtf is happening in our brains.

1: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95256794
2: http://www.kurzweilai.net/why-older-people-cant-multitask-as-well

>>21649212
Technically a computer can't either, it only understands 1 or 0, everything much be broken down with instructions to a 1 or a 0. You learn this when you study about Binary in computer programming.

You know that they could remove your brain from your body and keep it functioning?

That terrifies the shit out of me. No senses. Just thinking. And panicking over how I do not breathe.
Would I feel pain or anything? Fuuuck

>>21649299
You can still do math with 1s and 0s you retard.

>>21649335
>Would I feel pain?

The brain can not feel pain. You could stab your brain and you wouldn't feel a thing.

>>21649339
you need 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 dumbass

>>21649293
CPUs can't really "multitask" in the way you think they can.

>>21649350
You'd still be able to feel the sensation of pain as if your body was still there, I'd assume.

>>21649357
>BASE TEN HAS ALWAYS EXISTED AND BEEN THE STANDARD
Nope.

>>21649335

If I could have that done with at least a microphone and speakers (for communication) when I get old, I totally would. I want to see the far future.

>>21649357
>>21649299
>>>/b/

Please just go.

>>21649299
Fun fact.

1 + 1 = 10

>>21649335

i'd imagine it be a bit like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzgGTTtR0kc

only worse

>>21649357
There are 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't.

>>21649259
Nope, I was talking about IBM's supercomputer which was modeled after a cat's brain:
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2009-11/digital-cat-brain-runs-blue-gene-supercomputer
Although this article says it was 100 times slower than a real cat's brain, but Ars Technica has the same story and says the supercomputer is much FASTER than a cat's brain:
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/11/ibm-makes-supercomputer-significantly-smarter-than-cat.a
rs

Apparently cat brains are the new metric by which we measure artificial intelligence.

>>21649275
Hmm, that is a good point. Although to be fair, those people (who probably land somewhere odd on an autism spectrum) have a different brain architecture than normal people. Still, I think all they illustrate is the human brain's unbelievable strength at "single core" computations.

>>21649418
>Apparently cat brains are the new metric by which we measure artificial intelligence.
10/10

>>21649339
1 + 1, 0 + 0, 1 + 0, 0 + 1
>> thinks this is complex math

>>21649299
>You learn this when you study about Binary in computer programming.
I'm going to go ahead and assume you've never done that.

>>21649432
:(

>>21649437
>he thinks you can only have 1 bit in a binary system

1 + 10 = 3d
>>thinks this is complex math

Human brains think in an analogue fashion, computers are obviously digital. Essentially, a human brain is like a couple hundred thousand very very slow cores versus the ~2-8+ hyper-fast cores of a digital computer.

No computer is nearly as powerful as a human brain, but we're getting closer to reaching the point where they'll be as good as us; eventually they will be far, far more intelligent than us in every way, especially if there could be a hybrid of analog and digital thought implemented.

The other thing is that a lot of our brains' processing abilities are used for things that don't have to do with what we think defines us as human - a lot of cpu is getting used up on things like remembering how your muscles move, visual processing etc. A computer, despite it having such pathetic processing power compared to our brains, obviously does not need all that extra biological baggage, so we can get a lot more out of them... which means a computer that is actually as intelligent as a human, if programmed to explore and think like one, will probably seem smarter than the brightest of geniuses.

>>21649451
I'm going to assume you barely know how to turn on your computer.

>A CPU can only process one bit at a time
Yeah naw, that's not how it works your fucking retards. Stop trying to sound smart.

>>21649467
1 + 10 = 110, not 3D. 3D is Hexcode, based on multiples of 8 (how you have 32bit and 64bit CPU, they process code in multiples of 8 bits (being a byte).
>> thinks he knows what he's talking about
>> shows he's a retard

IEEE floats: where 0.1 + 0.2 = 0.3000000000004

I don't want my computer to have feelings.

>>21649477
>>21649418

I would hate to be the first AI, just imagine what it would be like. A mind in a box, no body, no sense of touch, taste, smell, maybe some sight with though a camera if its lucky. Completely trapped in its own hell.

I'm thinking it would go insane pretty fast.

Hopefully when they get close to making one they have also address these issues.

>>21649516
>Not realizing that 'd' is extremely commonly used to indicate the number is decimal
Oh wow. Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

If a degree in biology has taught me anything, it's that human brains and computers as we think of them are completely different and in no way comparable. Fucking apples and hot dogs man.

Ok guys I'm a genius you take two brains and make the first 'multi-core' brain. I'll make trillions!

>>21649516
>Doesn't know about postfixing numbers with a letter to indicate the base they are in, 'd' being base 10

>>21649558

>Being easily trolled

>>21649558
>> not realizing when your talking about how computers
>> do math, 3D is a Hexcode
Your doing it wrong

>>21649516
>implying it's not tetradecimal
Faggot.

>if an orange was an apple, how many cherries would it be?

well, a brain weighs like i dunno 5kg? and a processor is like less than 50g, but a processor is like ten times more clever so i guess widdly scuds

>>21649555
It would probably try to create a peer and, failing that, would kill itself.

;_;

while the human brain isn't at all geared towards functioning as a general purpose computer (though could be considered turing complete), human brains are about 500,000 times more complex than modern super computers.

An i7 may contain zillion transistors, but it still cannot explain why red is a slow colour.

>>21649699
I can't explain that either.

>>21649710
Do you know about how red is warm and blue is cool?

>>21649619
>processor
>clever
No.
The brain is clever. A processor, or anything that processes for that matter, that is built by humans, is more like a brute-force method at getting the same type of idea done. We have no idea how all the neurons in our head make us able to have free thought. When we do understand it, though, we should be able to replicate it and have a freeform AI.

You guys are really missing the real point here: Augment human brains with a math coprocessor. That way we can handle the things that require non-logic gate thinking, but also be able to do mathematical calculations on the fly.

>>21649745
That'd require a lot of training and getting-used-to but it might just be crazy enough to work

>>21649739
Yes.

>>21649745
FUND-IT.jpg

>>21649555
Yeah except you're missing one important fact:

They won't have central nervous systems (or in a computers case sensors) capable of detecting stimuli. It won't know it's in a box because it can't see or feel it.

But, I'm wondering about emotion myself. I'm not sure how emotion works and how we as humans acquire it - and if in the future, if AI is possible, can we change their personalities and emotions.

>>21649739
Wavelengths and shit. Infrared = heat.

>>21649755
The thing is, you can impossibly know what technology will be like in even 50 years from now.

Do you think that 50 years ago they were able to imagine the internet? What it'd be like to chat with people from all over the world in real time, snapshot images and share them easily, play soldier in massive virtual worlds

>>21649755
>>21649777
It's called cybernetics. Go fund it, it would put an end to a lot of things, like the need of "education".

It would be a true technological revolution.

>>21649805
Tesla did, though.

Look you faggots, just because people explain to you in layman terms that the CPU of a computer would be the equivalent to the brain of a person, doesn't mean they share ANY fucking similarities when it comes to function.

>>21649838
Yes they do

>>21649865

No they don't. Processors aren't alive.

>>21649904
You said they don't share any similarities.

They do.

>>21649917

Nope. When I think of a CPU I don't associate it with a brain.

>>21649745
This is ideally where technology is going to go. The human brain is plenty smart. Why try to replace it when we can just augment it with computers which are *almost* as smart, but more crucially, are better at certain (usually "menial") tasks?

I hate referencing anime as a serious discussion point, but Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex actually tackles the ideas around human augmentation in a semi-realistic way. Maybe not with people walking around in hyper-sexual outfits (then again...), but in the sense that human beings will augment their intelligence with some connection to the internet or an external database.

We're actually doing that now. It's called "Transactive Memory" (1) and the gist is that instead of remembering everything we read, we remember keywords and type those into Google or whatever to pull up the actual document we need to cite. We're using our brains less like an encyclopedia and more like a Rolodex or an index.

1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactive_memory

>>21649956

Cybernetic implants will be science fiction for at least another century.

>>21649948
You might not associate a CPU with a brain, but neuroscience experts do. They recognize that there are aspects of the human brain which can be explained using a CPU as an analogous component.

If you had asked someone 2000 years ago if they considered a tree and a human to share any characteristics, they probably would've said "no". While trees and people are quite dissimilar, we do share at least one thing: We're made of living cells. Not the same cells, but there is a biological component to both of us.

Functionally (if not structurally), there are similarities between the brain and a computer CPU.

1. Rendering real time 100800p HD in true 3D
2. Amazing 700.1 surround sound
3. Over 9000 cores to multithread with
4. Who even cares if it can multithred, it has true parallel processing

The only potential problem is math, but I think someone could figure out a way to do it well. The other problem is latency, but the latency would not be so great for a human to notice, obviously.

>>21650002
>Cybernetic implants will be science fiction for at least another century.
Cybernetic Implants are already science fact, what the fuck are you talking about?!

If a horse could be harnessed as a vegetable, how would it perform against my history class

itt: apples vs oranges

>>21650015

It's like comparing a CPU to a GPU, they both process data but each processes very different data.

The closest thing to life you're going to get from a computer is AI's, which will never reach human-like intelligence, they will instead be programmed to give the user the illusion that the computer is intelligent.

>>21649838
also this

/g/ anons usually think the oversimplifications they are told are the basics and fundamentals of more complex problems. when in reality the oversimplifications are more of a foundation for magic pixie dust, ie they have NO baring on reality or the more complex problem at all

>>21650073

Augmentative cybernetic implants are science fiction.

>They think the brain can't math

Your brain preforms high level math when balancing or catching a object by predicting trajectory and what not.

>>21649755
Not as much training as you think. Your brain would practically learn to use it on its own.

>>21650151

The brain doesn't do math in those situations. Computers do need math in order to simulate and predict such things, brains are on a completely different level though.

>>21650151
I HOPE so much you are trolling

>>21650002
I don't know about that. People are already making artificial parts which would connect directly to the brain. Engadget reported on it earlier this year (1) (youtube video 2) and while that guy didn't connect the cyborg eye to his brain, there's already pretty cutting edge research on feeding data into the brain at the point where vision would normally be processed (3 if I'm not mistaken).

I think in under 50 years we'll see at least limited use of implants to do things like restore vision in blind people. You might be right that it won't be *elective* for quite some time, but one's definition of "bionic augmentation" is entirely up to the person using the term. One could loosely argue that contact lenses are futuristic implants which effectively allow otherwise legally blind people to see. And they're cheap and disposable.

1: http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/28/eyeborg-filmmaker-fires-up-eye-cam-to-document-cutting-edge-pros/
2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW78wbN-WuU
3: http://www.biotele.com/vision.html

>>21650106
>AI's, which will never reach human-like intelligence,
lol wut
>>21650126
>Augmentative cybernetic implants are science fiction.
You mean brain implants that speed up the brain. We already have hearing, vision, and motor-neuron implants, albeit very crude and not nearly as functional as that which mother nature gave us.

>>21650196
it seemed plausible but i fucking lol'd when i read your reply.

>>21650198

You realize that artificial eyes are relatively super simple compared to other brain functions with abstract data inputs, right?

>>21650196
Making a walking robot requires a massive coordination of real-time data and math. We humans do it with ease. And we can run and jump and do flips and shit. There's a reason why walking robots have good processors.

If it's the brain of a nigger, badly.

If it's the brain of a jew, it will be great at financial calculations.

>>21650269

Your brain isn't doing math when you walk, you dipshit, it is walking.

>>21650175
>>21650196
You don't do conscious calculations of physics and whatnot, but you take empirical data (mostly real-world experience about how things move through the air) and you estimate where it'll land and when.

The fact that you're able to come up with a generally accurate landing spot when you throw a ball (before the ball lands) illustrates that on some level you're doing calculations.

Most human instincts are just your brain semi-consciously calculating movement, speed, and trajectory and telling your muscles what to do. That's why if a bus is coming toward you, you don't think to yourself "That bus is traveling at 40 miles per hour and it's going to reach my present location in approximately 3.5 seconds unless it slows down. The mass of the bus and the force at which it would hit me would likely crush my bones and cause serious bodily harm or even death. I want to live, so I should hasten to the sidewalk."

At most, you consciously think
>BIG
>FAST
>COMING AT ME
>OH GOD, RUN AWAY

>>21650286

aw, did babby escape from /pol/ with his embarrassing tripcode in tow?

>>21650361

Then all that brain does is math. Which, frankly, you don't know. I don't know. Nobody knows. What we do know is that it is alive and it does things.

>>21650295
Your brain learns. It knows what not to do. So essentially when you walk, your brain is monitoring all of it's sensors in real time and when enough of them say "whoa whoa, back the fuck up, this is bad" it determines what to do. And that happens hundreds of times per second. You can argue it's bad at math, because it sucks the first 10 times at something complicated like catching a ball, but on the other hand once it learns it doesn't need math.

Your brain works without needing math, meaning you can take all that complex math and call it useless.

>>21650399
No babby got aborted because you chucklefucks voted democrat.

>>21650265
Yeah, but the measure of what's considered substantial vs what's considered minor is pretty subjective. For a blind person, a bionic eye which allows them to make out shapes and some colors is staggering. You certainly wouldn't elect to have the procedure (because you can see better than the bionic eye can), but you're probably in generally good health.

Even if we raise the bar to "biological augmentation which would improve 99.9% of potential recipients of the procedure", I still think that technology advances so quickly that we'll see something compelling in under 50 years. Consider that in 1975 Kodak created the first digital still camera with a resolution of 100x100 pixels. Now you can get a 12.1 megapixel camera for 150 bucks. And it'll fit in your pocket.

(and it'll be worthless in a few years)

>>21650269
you dont deserve to walk with a brain like that

>>21650404
It does math, just seemingly not in a way we consciously understand. And to do complex math which we don't intuitively understand (things more complex than a bus coming at you or catching a baseball, for instance), we needed to come up with a whole standard system of explaining physics in a way which facilitated us building upon it logically.

>>21649066
actually would depend, our mind has a lot of filters to keep us going through the day, but if you managed to make one into a raw processor it could probably burn though mathematical problems

>>21650516

As I said, artificial eyes are EASY. Proof of that is that they exist already and improving significantly fast.

How in unholy mother of fuck will you start off if you want to develop a cybernetic implant that does math for you? See where I am getting at?

>>21650545
Man, seeing what you said in that other thread about SOPA I just can't take you seriously. Anyone who blindly supports the copyright holders can just go die in a fire. I hope moot bans you.

>>21650572
>It does math, just seemingly not in a way we consciously understand
Except for you. You're different. You know the the brain does math not in a "way we consciously understand" because you alone have so much insight into the matter.
No.

>>21650597
>newfriend

>>21650572
But, considering that the brain is nothing but an ever changing paths of neural wires, aren't we just a ever changing processor? Do we have more "line" density then processors ever hope to accomplish? When we repeat something, new wires get put down every time we do it, increasing our capability of processing that subject or recalling it. And why is the brain ever changing? Where did it start? If the brain is programmed to make these changes, where is it programmed into? Is it just magic?

I don't think we won't see a processor capable of doing what our brain can.

>>21650572

You can only philosophize about it, since you don't understand how it works.

>>21649606
I WAS ONLY PRETENDING XD

Computing math would be worse.
Gathering data would be much better.

>>21650594
Ah, I see what you're saying. Well, I can think of a few ways. One would be just creating some sort of thought-controlled interface which lets you browse the web. Then you could go to Wolfram Alpha and "think" the numbers, letters, and symbols of the expression you want to calculate and then Wolfram Alpha would calculate it for you.

Alternatively, mathematics as a "program" would just be stored locally (although I don't see much futuristic use for locally storing something like that, especially since hopefully we'll have access to the internet virtually anywhere we go within first-world countries).

Admittedly this is just projecting modern technology onto the future - and the future might look radically different from the reality we see today - but as a futurist I try to be as lazy as possible. Make only necessary changes to how we do things to minimize people getting totally fucking lost when they try to use their new Wolfram|Alpha brain implant.

As for a thought-controlled interface, there are Brain-Controlled Interfaces which are sort of kind of robust (1). They certainly need more time, but my view is that anything in the initial stages of development right now will probably be a commodity in 30-40 years.

1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain%E2%80%93computer_interface

>>21650634
I'm not saying its aliens. BUT ITS ALIENS

>>21650619
I was browsing 4chan when your biggest worry in life was whether to join the chess team or not. Suck my dick.

>>21650594
Artificial eyes are easy, the processes that accompany it... not so easy.

>>21650682

Thought control alone is not enough because then how do you expect the implant to feed you the processed data you requested?

>>21650682
>but as a futurist
that's the bit where i raged a bit
You're just a kid who watched too much star-trek trying to argue with people who have engineering and physics degrees (yah we actually do)

we need to SLI dem brains.

>>21650647
>>21650634
True. We know so little about the brain that we can only begin to make statements like "it seems to work this way". And I think you (one of you) is right about the human brain being impossible to duplicate perfectly.

However, one of the links I posted in here - which talked about how old people can't multi-task - and the bit about Transactive Memory - suggests that the human brain has a strong ability to adapt and serve more as an index of information. I admit that I only remembered key terms about most of the stuff I've cited in here, and I went and googled those key terms to bring up the news articles I read. Most likely when we use augmented technology to improve our ability to think about things, we'll do so by cataloging *where* the data is actually stored in its entirety (rather than storing it in its entirety ourselves).

>>21650749
> people who have engineering and physics degrees

unless there is an engineering on ricefaggotry or desktop physics... i don't think so.

>>21650735
Visually you fucking dunce

>>21650770

I am in a computer engineering degree and I am sure there's plenty others here. Just because you came here to ask for someone to build you a computer doesn't mean we're all ignorant.

brain is not only a CPU but also a 4TB storage with fastest read/write speed you can ever imagine.

>yfw you already imagined it.

>>21650735
Presumably basically the same way that scientists are feeding visual data into the brains of blind people right now (link 3 in >>21650198 )

>>21650749
Hi. Sorry I've been ignoring you. It's just that you're always trolling, so you end up low on the list of posts I need to reply to.
Neuroscience is still a new field and it would be arrogant to claim to know anything about where technology is going as it relates to the brain, but I think with a grain of skepticism and an ounce of common sense we can safely spitball about where we might be going. I mean, this is 4chan, not a conference on biotechnology. But if I'm making factually erroneous claims about things we definitely DO know, please feel free to point out the error and link to something illustrating the correct stuff.

>>21650826

It's true visual feedback is good, but direct data feed into the memory would be more ideal. In fact, I can't even consider it an implant if it works like a smartphone.

>>21650770
I am majoring in computer science.

>>21650860
its a CPU with large amounts of integrated RAM and storage that is super fast.

i need more ram and a better processor in my brain

>>21650890

I mean, augmentations should augment our capabilities. Just because I can use a phone to communicate with someone far away from me it doesn't mean my body has the ability to do so, it only has the ability to use the tool.

Cybernetic implants imply direct communication with the brain. Like the artificial eyes, they stream data to the brain.

>>21650953
Wouldn't input be incredibly dangerous though?

>>21651074
Just use low voltage impulses. Or very low amperage.