If human brain was to be described using the the present technology what would be the nearest configuration akin to it (leave aside the logical bit)???
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Description of human brain????
- Thread starter mac'in'toss'ed
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
basically what would it be like:
computational power????
memory : (RAM) short term???
hard drive : long term memory (secondary storage)
etc....
it would be really interesting to get the feedback,
and please donot mind for such a sily question, but i think it is interesting and fun too....
computational power????
memory : (RAM) short term???
hard drive : long term memory (secondary storage)
etc....
it would be really interesting to get the feedback,
and please donot mind for such a sily question, but i think it is interesting and fun too....
Moravec from Carnegie Mellon estimated it at 100 million MIPS (millions of instructions per second) and another researcher estimated it at 100,000 million MIPS.
I should say that Moravec estimated the speed by measuring the speed of the retina, this is according to this article: http://www.smartcomputing.com/articles/2002/s1302/39s02/39s02.pdf?guid=
I should say that Moravec estimated the speed by measuring the speed of the retina, this is according to this article: http://www.smartcomputing.com/articles/2002/s1302/39s02/39s02.pdf?guid=
It's important to remember that the human brain can process thousands of pieces of information at a time, whereas a computer can only process one piece of information at a time--it can just do so very quickly. So while a computer can add 1 to 1 and get 10 in a nanosecond or less, it would probably struggle to do something we humans consider simple such as hitting a baseball--it would have a fraction of a second to find the baseball in its visual field, then determine its trajectory, and finally determine a trajectory to swing the bat to meet it at such a place that the ball lands in fair territory.
For more scientific information on the brain (9:22 and worth every second):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mdI_MmN-Lp4
"What is the brain? If you don't know that, you've forgotten how to think. You see, the brain is many things. It's a calculator, a dictionary, a battery, a camera, a TV and radio. In fact, it's all of these things and more. Pretty smart for something that resembles a garden cauliflower!"
For more scientific information on the brain (9:22 and worth every second):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mdI_MmN-Lp4
"What is the brain? If you don't know that, you've forgotten how to think. You see, the brain is many things. It's a calculator, a dictionary, a battery, a camera, a TV and radio. In fact, it's all of these things and more. Pretty smart for something that resembles a garden cauliflower!"
Cool!
keep it coming friends...
Is multicore processing the solution...????!!!!
i think it is the space problem. the modern super computers can do all the required mathematical calculation for everything except high end logic that makes us human..., makes us go wrong and makes us creative also
keep it coming friends...
Is multicore processing the solution...????!!!!
i think it is the space problem. the modern super computers can do all the required mathematical calculation for everything except high end logic that makes us human..., makes us go wrong and makes us creative also
I cannot verify this, and I don't have a reference handy, but the last estimate I heard is that where in computer terms we currently tend to use prefixes like "Giga" and "Tera" (10^9 and 10^12 respectively), a conventional computer with storage and processing power similar to a human brain would require the prefix "Exa" (10^18), or in the neighborhood of a billion gigabytes of storage operating at a billion billion operations per second.
On the authority of Moore's law this should be attainable in around 45 years, barring any Moore-breaking discoveries in the interim.
On the authority of Moore's law this should be attainable in around 45 years, barring any Moore-breaking discoveries in the interim.
i think it is the space problem. the modern super computers can do all the required mathematical calculation for everything except high end logic that makes us human..., makes us go wrong and makes us creative also
There's a quote that goes like this:
"Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes."
I think that the only think that is holding computers back at this point (aside from more speed, obviously), is the ability to learn. Humans can learn a language, learn how to predict where a baseball will go depending on how you hit it (like you said) and even makes educated guesses about peoples personalities something as little as a comment they made about current events. If computers could do that, then we would be talkin big possibilities.
Zwhaler: However, even if you programmed a computer with all of the physics involved in hitting a baseball, it would take a far longer amount of time for the computer to know what to do than it would for a human to do the same. Image processing is a huge reason for this--picking out where the baseball is, and then estimating its future position based on its trajectory over several frames, would take a LOT of processing horsepower.
Another thing that is interesting to point out is that computers do NOT deal with imprecision. Consider physics in video games, for example. An AWFUL lot of work goes in to getting physics calculations up to sixty physics ticks per second. Even so, there are situations in which the simulations are very inaccurate in real-time physics applications. Consider what you often see in video games such as Half-Life 2 when an object needs to find its resting position. It's often not pretty and can seem wildly inaccurate. On the other hand, the human brain deals with estimates very well. If you throw a box across the room, I can quickly give you a decent guess as to how it will end up--probably even before it lands.
Another thing that is interesting to point out is that computers do NOT deal with imprecision. Consider physics in video games, for example. An AWFUL lot of work goes in to getting physics calculations up to sixty physics ticks per second. Even so, there are situations in which the simulations are very inaccurate in real-time physics applications. Consider what you often see in video games such as Half-Life 2 when an object needs to find its resting position. It's often not pretty and can seem wildly inaccurate. On the other hand, the human brain deals with estimates very well. If you throw a box across the room, I can quickly give you a decent guess as to how it will end up--probably even before it lands.
