Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Isnt the final or next true step for cpu's organic?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 8, 2006 5:03:32 PM

Shouldnt the next processor be organic like a brain (how the could acomplish this i dont know)? think about it a person can store tons upon tons of information (me and my friend estimate at least 3,000 tereabytes of memories for the average 30 year old (cant calculate emothions)) and processes lots of stuff on (techicaly) 1 core. i always have 3 things on my mind at once at least at school its around 5-8. and yes i am thinking about these things constintly. This is what I think is the nest step.

(feel free to call me crazy) :( 
December 8, 2006 5:17:23 PM

Although the information storage would be no issue at all it is a simple statement my friend reminded me of today. Computers are clumsy, dumb shits. lets face it, as humans we have developed said processors from babbage to intel. and all of the information contained within all machines come from us, giving a processor means to think could not be possible as it would require unkowns, the unpredictability. as humans we can shift to whatever topic we like, computers would only be able to do this randomly or when told no?

im not saying wat im saying is right im just spreading opinion lol. but i think the next true step forward is to understand ourselves more so, lets face it, to put it bluntly, we know jack all about the human brain.
December 8, 2006 5:27:15 PM

Nope, wrong, your kinda on track, but facing the wrong direction. Processors as we know them now are just number crunchers for us, able to manipulate numbers millions of times a second. Our brains cannot do this, nor can we ever do this... and manipulating numbers like CPU's do now will become more and more important. In this sense, computers should never become like a human brain. Also, computers can process multiple instructions already with almost no performance loss, we have trouble driving and talking...

However, in the field of robotics, neural networking, and AI, then yes, the processors should be like a human brain, able to make decisions given a set of circumstances. However, this would be a completely different processor than what we use for scientific or server work. Whether we will make chips this complicated is an ethical issue, but that would be the ultimate goal of robotics and AI to make a chip very similar to the human brain.

Now, a robot might be able to have both kinds of processors, a number crunching one and a decision making one (the decision making could also be software implemented, but I don't even want to go into that grey area...) so it process as fast as a true computer while still being able to go outside the boundaries of it's programming (ethical issue yet again)...

Meh... ain't gonna happen for a long time, and when robots end up taking over the world, I better be long dead...
Related resources
December 8, 2006 5:32:32 PM

but again you said, given a set of circumstances. And i relaised this was of little relevance when you moved on to explain, but surely, it nwould still never totally reach the human brain itself.

Without going into a religious lecture n stuff, there is/isnt a meaning to life, and where this would need to be implemented into the decision part, computers would only ever have artificial emotion, the differences in these levels of emotion, tolerance or ebing subjected to it would not differ. And in all cases where the brain would need to be synchronised with the human brain, you would still need to orginally set it up, or govern rules, the rules would act as guide lines therefore hindering it, where humans have these same guidlines but can choose if needs be, to break them.

selfawareness would also be an issue i guess.

again i may be talking out of my ass. just my thoughts
December 8, 2006 5:38:08 PM

organic processors would still be useful for the home user, tehy would probably have common sense (maybe even more sense than the user) would be able to learn (need to put up a baorder line for that feature for obvious resons) create all sorts of stuff (art programs games). For the lonely people it can carry a conversation with the user and even help him in his time of need (Death,Divorce).
December 8, 2006 5:48:32 PM

For homes, a smart system, one that can adapt with the person but doesn't necessarily have intelligence is fine. Able to understand a persons verbal commands (i.e. open blinds, turn on lights), able to adjust to a persons schedule (turn heater on before he comes home), and whatever else to make the persons life easier. However, I don't see a point for it to create things (why...?) nor comfort a person in times of need (first off, there are friends, family, and other loved ones... we don't need people to get attached to computers more than they are now... sociologists would have a field day...).

For an intelligent computer, I would only consider it intelligent if it can make it's own decisions, and then learn from what the actions those decisions made. We learn things like that, why can't computers learn like that. Our personality, our traits, even our emotions are from our past experiences and social boundaries. An intelligent AI should be able to experience the same things, and draw out it's own conclusions. We have laws governing us, they will have laws governing them, hard-wired or otherwise. The only thing I will have issue with is if we create an intelligent self-aware computer, should we have the power to tell it exactly what to do.. then wouldn't that defeat the purpose of making it intelligent and aware if we're not going to give it choices?

Sigh, making robots or making beer... I choose beer. Less gray areas.
December 8, 2006 5:53:37 PM

Right, but if computers had conciousness, they would not continue to be our slaves - there is no reason they would want to and we would feel bad & disallow this slavery as a society. Creating sentient beings with human intelligence is already widely practiced all over the world in a manner that is much more thrilling than the contruction of a computer although lessening the pain of initial boot-up of these would be nice.

Jo
December 8, 2006 6:01:30 PM

true, were would the line be drawn in actually creating someone that would experience the fear of persecution.

But as to the drawing own conclusions, this would mean the brain could give itself liscence to do things, if so, it could quite easily bypass the rules we govern, if not its own conclusions hindered b those rules. i.e. there could only be a nearly brain, or a out of control brain.

and we have all seen enough movies to know wat the cosequences might be, however not so dramatic. id imagine we could stop soemthing as such before it got too large.

and on a fanatical note: how would we stop them? batt;es rely on weakness and strength, were humans in the wild survive by intelligence alone (when they did). with our intelligence duplicated if not bettered, how would we play any kind of trump card?
December 8, 2006 6:02:00 PM

yes but of course there would be safety features such as when a certain amount of anger and other harmful emotions if will restart and loss the last 5 mins of information. I think itll listen to us when my finger is on the delete button to erase memory to a certain extent.
December 8, 2006 6:09:30 PM

Ever heard of the HAL 9000?
December 8, 2006 6:11:53 PM

but as i said, when you mentioned the 10 minute rpevious delete etc. you have to remember it is invcontrol of itself, you would need to set an external cpu to govern the original, and the governing of it would result in it being too artificial.

although all logical explanation seems to be defying us, i still think it is going to happen. and in the words of Mr. Smith: "it is inevitable"

global warming should kill us all before this anyway, if it lives up to its job description atleast
December 8, 2006 6:14:32 PM

Quote:
think about it a person can store tons upon tons of information (me and my friend estimate at least 3,000 tereabytes of memories for the average 30 year old

The difference between storage in your brain and computer storage is the storage on the computer is "static" and "perfect".

Static in the way that if the computer stores more data, the original data stays the same. In the brain, all our past memories are influenced by things that have happened since that time.
Perfect in the way that a computer stores exactly how something happened. Take a movie for example, a human remembers some of the scenes and the storyline, but the computers remember it all. A human could not answer about the specific the color of the random brick in the background of a scene, while a computer could give that answer.

I'm not sure how much data the brain can store, but I do know that the brain is a very imperfect medium for exact recollection, while a computer is perfect.
December 8, 2006 6:18:10 PM

you could artificially set it to make itself more 'static'. but again it would never be perfect, the only way i can see would be creating the said perfect brain and asking it to mimic the human brain and create a static brain CPU. the enhanced brain could be used to create its intended self.
December 8, 2006 6:23:36 PM

HAHA, would have to be stopped by the governing bit.

NEW THOUGHT, why not make the chip BELEIVE it is a human brain, configure its past life and modify all parts need to be modified.

Also these chips would lead to groundbreaking technology everywhere, the hacking and firewalling system would go beyond human understanding as chips were designed for the purpose to expand their own knowledge.

how would a chip feel being put in a box and being told to process graphics all day? this means the current CPUs would stay in use.

and surely turning off ur pc would be killing it?
December 8, 2006 6:30:34 PM

haha wow, im gonna ahve to remember that, i was always vaguely interested in that after i saw day after tommorrow (I KNOW it is dramatised lol). Anyways we will save that for another topic.
December 8, 2006 6:33:57 PM

if a processor was organic wouldnt it also have the ability to decompose like all other organic material? Especially under the heat conditions that processor have to take these days anything organic would die very fast due to an inability to handle the heat.

so probably not, but who knows?
December 8, 2006 6:37:38 PM

exactly (with the selfawareness bit), you would have to strip it of its selfawareness or limit it, wich could not be done as it would leanr to bypass itself. you would have to have a seperate cpu to govern it, which even that could be compromised.

we have spread like a trunk to its buds. this topic is endless lol
December 8, 2006 7:14:13 PM

For computers to begin to think like us we will need to become far better programmers. We are in the era of parallel processing, which is exactly what our brain does 24/7. What we lack currently is the software to drive these computer "brains".

Our brains program themselves, which is another thing computers do not do today in any great capacity. Self modifying code, and not just data-driven code, is necessary to give a computer the thinking power of a human brain.

The brain can process information in several directions at once. It can change gears and process something completely differently and go through many "what if" scenarios all at the same time before ever coming up with a conclusion or answer. It can also rapidly "recompute" an answer through several iterations and consider each iteration an "answer" to the problem at hand.

Have you ever been asked a question and start to give an answer only to find yourself interrupting what you were going to say and give a different answer instead? One of the most powerful features of our brains is the ability to continuously analyze a problem long after we've found an "answer".

These are just some of the things our brains do continuously that computers can't even dream about doing today, even with a 1000 cores. But then, we are easily fooled. A computer could be human to us if we are convinced it is so, regardless of the messy details below the surface.

I guess I'm saying that our problems with making a computer act like a human are not so much with the hardware as it is with the software. It doesn't have to function exactly like a human brain to give similar results.

One more thing to consider. How long will it be before some scientist finds out how to put a "program" into some animals brain and use it as a computer? Think about that.
December 8, 2006 7:22:16 PM

I'm just waiting for them to make my cyborg body...

There are way too many issues to be discussed here. When it comes to true A.I. and self-aware computers, you're bringing in philosophers, lawmakers, christian Dogma, all the powers of science, most of the neural-medical population, and the kitchen sink... This will probably be debated for years and years, might be the biggest controversy to even top slavery (which might in essence be similar, if we're treating these computers as things that should work for us...)

Meh, this whole thing is too complicated for lil ol me. Drink beer, be happy, live a long life.
December 8, 2006 7:30:18 PM

Quote:
Shouldnt the next processor be organic like a brain (how the could acomplish this i dont know)? think about it a person can store tons upon tons of information (me and my friend estimate at least 3,000 tereabytes of memories for the average 30 year old (cant calculate emothions)) and processes lots of stuff on (techicaly) 1 core. i always have 3 things on my mind at once at least at school its around 5-8. and yes i am thinking about these things constintly. This is what I think is the nest step.

(feel free to call me crazy) :( 


Well, i don't think so because, life time would be short, and we would need to give him something to eat, cause everything with is organic, need food. And would be too sensible too, like, if we accidently drop it, it could bleed, and blood everywhere.
December 8, 2006 7:30:24 PM

Quote:
....Processors as we know them now are just number crunchers for us, able to manipulate numbers millions of times a second. Our brains cannot do this, nor can we ever do this...


I'm not so sure this is true. Our brains may not compute in the GHz, but they parallel process pretty darn well. Think how fast you can calulate the force/trajectory/angle for a basketball, or baseball. I'm not sure a computer could make the calculations faster.

I agree with HeartView, our brains are orders of magnitude above the CPU in computing power. What we lack is perfect recall.
December 8, 2006 7:30:51 PM

Quote:
Meh, this whole thing is too complicated for lil ol me. Drink beer, be happy, live a long life.


What about "live fast, die young, leave a good looking corpse"?
December 8, 2006 7:31:22 PM

Yea you right about those dang computers! (sarcasm) But look at the human brain. Some brains can't spell or use proper english (if that is the brains main language). But it can think of three things at the same time like a blonde a brunette and a redhead. Dang those brains are really advanced. No I doubt organic cpus are next. We already have them. It's called your brain and your average person only uses less than one percent of it potential. And you thought quad core was over kill. :roll:
December 8, 2006 7:36:52 PM

The homo sapiens doesnt even understand himself (and never will; the brain is too complex for the brain to understand it :lol:  ) so there cant be a way to build a human-like computer (not taking into consideration the required doesnt exist (yet?) anyway).

Yes, we are single-threaded. Too bad, maybe someone developes HT 4 brains =)
December 8, 2006 8:00:44 PM

I would think optics would be the most likely next evolution step from the electron transitors. Research are well into this and the first generation of anoptical transitor has already existed for several years.
December 8, 2006 8:01:32 PM

Quote:
Shouldnt the next processor be organic like a brain (how the could acomplish this i dont know)? think about it a person can store tons upon tons of information (me and my friend estimate at least 3,000 tereabytes of memories for the average 30 year old (cant calculate emothions)) and processes lots of stuff on (techicaly) 1 core. i always have 3 things on my mind at once at least at school its around 5-8. and yes i am thinking about these things constintly. This is what I think is the nest step.

(feel free to call me crazy) :( 


when I was going through engineering. We called this wet-ware.
In that we were discussing the capacity of the brain, and if it was
possible to store and retrieve information from an organic substance.
December 8, 2006 8:29:23 PM

Quote:
Shouldnt the next processor be organic like a brain (how the could acomplish this i dont know)? think about it a person can store tons upon tons of information (me and my friend estimate at least 3,000 tereabytes of memories for the average 30 year old (cant calculate emothions)) and processes lots of stuff on (techicaly) 1 core. i always have 3 things on my mind at once at least at school its around 5-8. and yes i am thinking about these things constintly. This is what I think is the nest step.

(feel free to call me crazy) :( 


No. I forget to water my plants, and I dont want to feed my computer.
I will wait for quantium computing to become a reality.
As well as neural net processor, so I can build me a DATA, then have him fight his evil, less technical, yet more emotional twin.
a c 448 à CPUs
December 8, 2006 8:57:37 PM

Your probably watching too much Star Trek.

I see wetware being developed, before organic CPUs.
December 8, 2006 11:11:05 PM

they already have a working organic computer. DOnt have time to google it though but should be easy to find. Its about as far along as the quantum computer. Red an artical in popular science about the computer using brain cells of a lizard lol.... bout 5 years ago.
December 9, 2006 8:50:15 PM

DATA? I would rather build a female version of DATA and it would not be used for fighting evil. :wink:

All they need to do is invent the holodeck and life as we know it would end.
December 10, 2006 1:11:39 AM

Quote:
....Processors as we know them now are just number crunchers for us, able to manipulate numbers millions of times a second. Our brains cannot do this, nor can we ever do this...


I'm not so sure this is true. Our brains may not compute in the GHz, but they parallel process pretty darn well. Think how fast you can calulate the force/trajectory/angle for a basketball, or baseball. I'm not sure a computer could make the calculations faster.

I agree with HeartView, our brains are orders of magnitude above the CPU in computing power. What we lack is perfect recall.

He is correct, the human brain is EXTREMELY slow compared to computers, an order of magnitude slower. This is the difference between the speed of neurons and silicon. The difference between the human brain and a computer, is the human brain is COMPLETELY parallelized and can be trained. A computer determines the trajectory of a baseball based off of all of the inputs available (speed/angle of the ball, wind, etc). The brain determines the trajectory of a baseball by recognizing a pattern.

Because the brain is made up of neuro-nets, it is extremely efficient at pattern recognization. Anything that can be broken down to pattern recognization can be computed by a brain faster. Anything that requires lots of computations will take longer. This is because the human brain is a very SLOW and PARALLEL, so if the brain is only processing one thread, it will be VERY slow.
December 10, 2006 3:19:29 AM

Quote:
uhhh ,,,,hmmmm,,,,,the,,,,,uhhhh,,,,,,brain,,,,,,hmmmmmm,,,,,,,,is slow.
hmmmm,,,,,,,,,,,,,uhhhhhh,,,,,not,,,,,,,,,sure,,,,,,,,,uhhhhh,,,,,,,,,if,,,,,,,,I,,,,,,,,,,,,,totally,,,,,,,,,,,,,follow :twisted:

i couldnt recognize the pattern :twisted:

this is statisticly true,autistic people are among those who dont fit in that category.pattern recognition isnt an advanced feature.

take rain man and time him versus a modern pc,on finding weather on a given date(hypothetically)the modern pc could google the info in aproximately the same time as rain man could remember it.

and computers cannot devise the level of breakthrough patterns of say a Stephen hawking.

raw computations are nothing compared to inspiration.Inspiration can deliver a complete solution in far less time that a computer can calculate.especially if the solution is new.
there is no basis for comparison,from mind to computer.and while it processes certain levels of data,it doesnt calculate the way it feels and the environmental influences cognitively.E.G. Plato's individual sense perception.

so our cell computations,feelings about our lives ,success,love,weather,plans,psycological stimuli,logic,reason,the complexities of the various levels within one set of real life problems.
The human mind is actually more powerful by a magnitude of capability.
motor functions.the list of our processes on any given minute would cripple a modern computer.we may not be faster at math,but we are more powerful.

a difficult emotion could lock a computer up in no time;how many ghz does it take to negotiate divorce?how much bandwidth for the hospitalization of a beloved family member?

there are no numbers to our emotions and inspirations;a computer if even remotely capable couldnt digest the information as it has no computation,no equation.so we can be slower at math,thats why we made our slave pc's to do what we could do only faster. :twisted:


You are correct, i said the mind is SLOWER, i didn't say that it isn't more powerful. That is because everything in the brain is parallelized. The brain is much more powerful because it can take all the inputs from the body and process that data at an extremely fast rate.

The reason a process wouldn't be able to do the same thing is not because a processor is slow or doesn't have enough power. The reason is because a processor can only work on 1 thing at a time (and now 2/4). The brain can work on millions of threads of data all at the same time, with each part of the brain working on a different type of data.

If we can create a computer that was complex as the brain using something similar to the brain, GREAT! But if we are going to build a CPU type of system (single threaded) based off of the same type of circuits the brain uses, it would be EXTREMELY slow. And if you're going to build something that is as complex as the brain, in order for it to be fast, why use something as slow as neurons? Why not build that same structure using silicon, so it would be just as complex and parallelized, but it would run at a magnitude of speed faster.

I am not saying the brain isn't powerful, im just saying, its similar to process and architecture. The brain uses a process that is EXTREMELY slow, but the architecture is MUCH better than anything currectly available. So if you want to use the architecture, GREAT. But the process is substandard to other processes that are available.
December 10, 2006 3:53:10 AM

Quote:
and then there is the chemical side of us,hormones and different elevations of nutrients from day to day.

If all we had was mathematical equation to process,I doubt wed live long. :wink:

For ages computers were slower.But that fun abacus generation is long past.We have made it fast because or mind does work fast enough to handle a fast computer,our detection of environment and movement are beyond computers still.unless gaming fps is drawn in @+48 fps.Which is pretty fast,and some computers cannot continually produce that.

bringing up web pages and processing movies,and starting an app,not always faster than our perception,and definitely less precise,largely for search engines vague nature.

computers are faster at mathematics.thats about it.everything boils down to 1 or 0 and the pace of the electron passing through a transistor,i believe the mind is capable of thought in nanoseconds as well,on as you say ,a much different wavelength,or pattern.what is slow for us is arranging the data into words and equation.

I dont believe our communication is efficient yet,so it is perceived as slow.


I am not debating the brain's ability to take in large amounts of information and process it quickly. I agree with everything you have stated. I am talking about the time it takes the cells in the brain to process a "1" or "0". This is equivalent to the time it takes a transistor to switch from a "1" to a "0", or the other way around (which is slower). Silicon can do this at a MUCH faster rate.

The P4 runs at a much higher speed than the Conroe, but the Conroe has a different architecture. The P4 may be able to do a few certain things faster due to the higher speed, but that doesn't mean its a better CPU. The brain can do a LOT more than the CPU, but the actual "transistors" (neurons) inside the brain are running much slower than silicon transistors. The brain is a great tool to learn from, especially in specialized areas (since the brain is made up of many different specialized "computers"). But neurons would not be a faster building block than transistors.
December 10, 2006 4:31:06 AM

Quote:
Ever heard of the HAL 9000?


I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.


Although the brain cannot process mathematical functions nearly as quickly as any modern CPU, think of the motor functions the brain must carry out. Can ASIMO dribble a basketball or kick a football? How about writing an essay on the ethics of stem cell research (not getting political here, just an example)?

Finally, CPUs (or any other computing tool) can only do what they were programmed to do by humans.

What would really be cool is if we could rewire our brains to focus on computing processes rather than the normal motor functions and thought processes its used to. Think of zooming through advanced physics and calculus problems in exchange for temporary paralysis and loss of self awareness (jk)!
December 10, 2006 4:33:12 AM

Quote:
what is the speed of a motor function?I just sneezed(literally)the very nanosecond it took my nose to become irritated my brain processed it and within one second i sneezed twice.

I am not whole heartedly disagreeing,but pinch yourself and see how long it takes to process,its almost instantaneous,my point is that we are capable of faster processing but we havent learned how to utilize the human brain in that manner.

I dont think well ever be as fast at mathematics ,but considering most people use under 1/10th of the brains capacity,id say it looks as if we have alot of room to upgrade.

so while what you say is true,its more an issue of capacity and focus and for the most part unknown.we know more about the processes of a cpu than the human brain ,and so remain locked at slowly evolving speeds;and immense power,compared to a computer.

so I agree but that is conditional to things yet to be discovered.

I personally think this is an incredible topic,as it covers the spectrum of the human mind.Imagine all the sociological factors in one decision;where if we had a common ground of reaction and action regardless of sociological factor,how much more we could progress in terms of communication.

but that leans heavilly on belief,which cannot be canned and sold to everyone.this for all intensive purposes is pandoras box,and reason why the brain is slower.

what is possible in the human mind is the one in a trillion chance that a prodigious young person would be capable of processing math faster than a computer,and one in several thousand trillions ;faster than a super computer.


I agree with everything you are saying. You are talking about the amoutn of the brain that is being used and the capabilities of the brain. NONE of that i am arguing. Yes, you pinch yourself and it happens instantaneously. But that is because 0.1 second is at the point where it is hard for a human to decifer the difference.

Todays CPUs run at >2GHz. That is the speed of the clock that the CPU is running at, that is NOT the transistor speed. In the amount of time it takes for 1 clock cycle to finish, a signal has propogated through many, if not hundreds of transistors!!!!

Each CONNECTION in the human brain can perform ~200 calculations per second (this is from Ray Kurzweil's "The age of spiritual machines", and Ray Kurzweil is a scientist). That means that a computer is running at >100 MILLION times faster than the human brain.

lets figure that a CPU does 1 calculation per clock cycle. That means 2 billion calculations per second, which is 100 million times faster. But the brain has 100 trillian connections (parallel computing). That means that the brain can do 10 million times more calculations per second, which makes it MUCH more powerful!!!!

But if we made a computer, out of neurons, using anything remotely similar to todays basis for CPUs, we would be slowing computers by more than 1 millions times!!!!

Now if we can harness the brain, and use anything similar to transistors to create something as complex as the brain, it would be running 100 MILLION times faster than our brains run today!
December 10, 2006 5:03:09 AM

Quote:
maybe,when you pinch yourself the pain is instant,so it travels through many nerves and back to register as pain,through many nerve centers and possibly several feet of nerve.

pinch on the fore arm,through several feet of nerve to brain and back,the pain is instantaneous in the region.how many nreve centers had to decide the correct path ,so that the pain didnt register on the leg and hours later?

the nerve centers sent it straight through and back in an instant over several feet of conduit,that speed would measure in nanoseconds and less.
so then it is our ego that possibly prohibits us from doing what we ask of computers .I designed an exotic wood pc today,in the process of slowly arriving at important decisions,i was inspired instantly with complete designs of features that prior to today id never thought of.

the minutes following i attempted to prove and disprove the design.
it could take a modern pc weeks to do that mathematically.

heres the equation;how do you reinforce a dovetail joint at a 90 degree angle on 1 inch thick wood
without marring the quality of the surface?the additional equation barrs 90 degree brackets and light metal angle.
its not a question a pc can answer.and its very much a mathematical equation.pounds per square inch of resistance to movement from exterior source ,much like any pc would encounter.

I think we hold ourselves back with apathy ,lazyness,and lack of self awareness.And ego.Among so many other things.
I believe we are capable of near infinite functionality in thought.
there are many obstacles.


I feel like i am arguing with a brick wall. My point wasn't what the brain can do. I have REPEATIBLY stated that the brain IS more powerful than a CPU. My point is, neurons are slower than transistors and that going to an organic material alone with todays current CPUs would only be a step backwards instead of forwards. While you keep replying to me, all your statements support that the brain is more powerful (which i agree with), but do NOT contend with the fact that neurons are in fact slower than transistors. I am no longer going to reply to any of your posts.
December 10, 2006 5:09:54 AM

Computers are very fast at calculations; everything they do depends on calculations. All the fancy 3D graphics we see are basically calculations. The brain doesn't need to do that. It's spatially oriented. And on a raw power scale, it's FAR more powerful than any computer.

Close your eyes and imagine a person you know. Most likely, you imagined pretty realistic image of said person. Could the computer have rendered such a complicated image with absolute perfection like your brain? No (photos don't count).

AS far as the OP's question goes, no, organic CPU's aren't the next big thing. That honor probably will go to light-CPU's. Although that won't happen until the speed of the electrons flowing through your computer become a bottleneck 8O .
December 10, 2006 5:12:33 AM

Quote:
i voted for your counter argument just because youre not full of crap. :p 


By the way, read Ray Kurzweil's "The Age of Spiritual Machine's", very good book and gives you a lot to think about in terms of where computers are today and where computers will be in the future.
December 10, 2006 5:37:07 AM

Quote:
a nerve can transmit iin sub nanosecond speed,and often does.while i appreciate your points i beg to differ on speed capabilities,as what is known weighs heavier in electronics than it does in the potential for speed in the brains processes/

dont get condemnatory,if my contention for unknown capacities,is so annoying ,stop replying;I am enjoying the discussion,and you have obviously done your homework;I WAS appreciating the debate.

I think I will take my alleged brick wall and do something a little more open minded than listen to your debate.

a.m.o.f. i believe you have encountered the brick wall in your debate;after which to you there is no more to discuss.And my REPEATED attempts to show the potential for speed are thrown off for current evolutionary statistics.

the computer is faster for sustained periods,but not altogether faster than the human mind.
lets say E=MC2 was inspired,the question was how was it provable
writing was slower than the thinking but was needed for proof.
I bet einstien had many equations going at once( all of which and there were probably hundreads related to the theory;Imagine it ,he was tinkering with equations and then all the sudden a flood,like everything at once of everything hed ever learned,bam right in his face.);but the fact is his mind created it,and that in and of its self was far faster an event than a computer can create.


I would like to continue further debate, but there is nothing to debate here. I agree that the human brain is more powerful and can complete MANY more taks faster than a computer. I have also stated why the human brain can do this even though neurons are actually slower than transistors. Since i agree with all of your points, and none of your points contradict my overall point, there is nothing to debate.
December 10, 2006 6:19:44 AM

One of the things that must be kept in mind is that the human brain has a much higher capacity for both memory and higher logic computations and abstraction/extrapolation. The human brain, unlike a computer, is literally doing hundreds of thing each second. Sight, taste, hearing, and the other senses are constantly being monitored and stored, only brought to our concisousness when nesessary for consideration and/or action. However, we actually store almost everything we experience in our lives, to a greater or lesser degree, though our concious minds have a somewhat limited degree to actively recall all the information. However, it has been proven in many hypnotic studies that we seem to store every detail of our waking lives, in minute detail, once the hippocampus becomes fully developed between age 3-5 years.

In addition to all the sensory data, we also store emotional and computational "strategy" data, which we refer to as 'experience'. This allows us to make decisions and develope new strategies based on those past experiences. All of this, makes our minds hugely more powerful than even most supercomputers. For, while computers may be able to track a few thing at one time, the human brain has the ability to do several orders of magnitude more, most of the time without even involving concious thought. We drive our cars with our hands and feet, use our eyes to adjust for road obstacles and conditions, while using our ears to listen to the radio (maybe even singing along with it), while we mentally consider our plans of whatever it is we are heading for. And this doesn't even involve all those involuntary functions that keep our hearts beating, our lungs breathing, etc.

No A.I. can truly suceed with our present storage capability. Plus, computers will need to be able to process higher order information, not simply binary data. Thirdly, the heuristic algorithims governing 'neural' connections will have to come up with some type of 'emotional' type weighting system, to help influence the feedback developement of the networks. With out a feedback based learning and experience system, data has no real value, except when strictly defined by the developers.
December 10, 2006 7:00:45 AM

Quote:
I definitely agree there is nothing to debate from your "statistical" point of belief to my "potential" belief.

And in all fairness we probably shouldnt have traversed that path in discussion after the first few statements,and should rather have stated beliefs versus available data.
I believe that inspiration is the human minds trump card to computer speed,as it relies on a massive gathering of data to be produced;and it takes all that data into the inspirations equation.which could be gigabytes of information,possibly even terabytes.

I also believe that man is capable,at some point of existing on a constant of that state.


I don't think its statistical against potential, i feel you are just looking at it on a different scope. Its like comparing a P4 Netburst against an AMD Athlon. We can argue all day which one is better, but fact of the matter is, due to the Athlon architecture, the Athlon had more instructions/second than then Netburst, but that doesn't change the fact that Intel makes a faster transistor. The time it takes for 1 transistor to switch is shorter on the Intel process than on the AMD process. But if you have a better design, you can use the slower transistors to make a much faster processor. Neurons will never be as fast as a transistor, but the brain is a MUCH better design than any computer.
December 10, 2006 7:52:48 AM

I think that we are missing the point here. so to try and resolve this impasse, i will re-post the original question. The original question/topic was
Re: Isnt the final or next true step for cpu's organic?
Now bearing that in mind we should look at what you guys are saying. Now as far as i can tell you both agree that the human mind is better, because of its massive parralalisim (is that even a word?) aka its ability to process multiple things at the same time.
now in terms of measurable speed, the facts are that silicon transistors ARE faster, its not a debatible point really the reasearch has been done, we know the speed of current CPUs and we know the speed that the human brain operates at, transistors are faster in terms of raw speed. so therefore if we had a computer that was organic and a computer that was built on silicon, and they were both equally parralel, then the silicon computer would win, no messy slow cemical reaction slowing it down ;p
However our current technology is years (perhaps even 100s of years) away from producing a silicon computer that is as parralel and complex as the human brain. so really the question is, should we sacrifice raw speed for parralel operating? i think the answer to that lies in the fact that organic computers would be far to dificult to manufacture. but thats just my opinion, and i have been wrong once before.
As for the comments about "inspiration", isnt your inspiration really just a direct result of parralel computing? your brain is analysing a equation, and you are suddenly inspired, the answer just "comes to you" but in reality your brain just finished calculation 100 different smaller equations, and when it did that it had solved the other calculation....just as a 4 core CPU can (if the proper programing is present) break a job down into multiple streams and solve the equation four times as fast. same thing except many many times more cores ;p
December 10, 2006 8:11:04 AM

The human brain CAN do large calculations with ease. Look up savants, and kim peek.

One still needs to take into consideration that todays processors don't give calculation errors when given alcohol. :D 
And with an ambient temp to >28C MY brain is completley stuffed, whereas my proc goes up to 65C without any trouble.
I really need to get a cooling hat.
December 10, 2006 5:28:37 PM

You’re probably right, but I can’t wait till the hard drives are no longer hard drives, as we know of them. Gees…fifty years from now what we consider top-of-the line PC will be a well kind of like today’s pc compared to the abacus or something like that. Exciting times the future holds…
December 10, 2006 5:55:59 PM

Quote:
processes lots of stuff on (techicaly) 1 core.

technicaly 70 trillions of cores (nerve system cells).

Next step will be quant computing, there was a nice article about this in IEEE Spectrum. I'll find that number of Spectrum and post the most interesting parts of the article here.
December 10, 2006 6:08:41 PM

Quantum computing is quite overrated.
December 10, 2006 6:41:20 PM

Quote:
Quantum computing is quite overrated.


Possibly, but quantum encryption isn't. The laws of phsyics themselves prohibit the breaking of a quantum code.
December 10, 2006 6:42:55 PM

Quote:
here you quantify common points as sandmman and i could not disagree on.

but what do you think about speed?the nerve,neuron vs the transistor,,especially the neuron in phenomenal states of inspiration?where to me,the brains speed is of a magnitude tha trancends a computers speed.


Silicon DOES work faster than our organic chemistry, that is a fact.

However, silicon only deals with binary data (on/off, 1/0). Our organic brains however, are able to with a much more complex multistate data sets, in a massively parallel setting involving thousands upon thousands of interconnected multistate processors (at any one time, since the human brain actually contains over one trillion of them). Neurons may have anywhere from 3-10 connections to neighboring neurons, and can adapt to have more or less connections, depending on the need.

The ability to use multistate data (not simply binary) should never be underestimated or under valued. With an average of 5 interconnections per neuron and 100,000,000,000 (one hundred billion, 10% of our brains) the possible number of calculations is 100 billion to the power of 5.

That's a one followed by 55 zero's. 10 to the 55th power. The best supercomputer in the world, the Connection Machine (all owned by the NSA) with 10,000 interconnected processors has a theoritical output of 36 PFLOPS (PetaFLOPS). That's 3.6 times 10 to the 14th.

Hence, our brains are massively more complex and overall faster than the fastest supercomputers on the planet by at least a couple of orders of magnitude.
December 10, 2006 6:51:41 PM

sounds like organic is either next or the final step. organic can sense things such as viruses bottlenecks and can quickly create solutions. people create solutions every day and a organic processor would fix tons of problems and raise computer performance.
With a organic processor millions of possibilities open up. id no longer have to drive cause my car can. ur house would have a doctor chief carpetner and w/e else you can think of built in.

I also believe humans should have cpus installed in them in near future which would enhance our abilities by alot. our own brain could power it with its own eletrical current.
December 10, 2006 6:57:16 PM

Quote:
here you quantify common points as sandmman and i could not disagree on.

but what do you think about speed?the nerve,neuron vs the transistor,,especially the neuron in phenomenal states of inspiration?where to me,the brains speed is of a magnitude tha trancends a computers speed.


Silicon DOES work faster than our organic chemistry, that is a fact.

However, silicon only deals with binary data (on/off, 1/0). Our organic brains however, are able to with a much more complex multistate data sets, in a massively parallel setting involving thousands upon thousands of interconnected multistate processors (at any one time, since the human brain actually contains over one trillion of them). Neurons may have anywhere from 3-10 connections to neighboring neurons, and can adapt to have more or less connections, depending on the need.

The ability to use multistate data (not simply binary) should never be underestimated or under valued. With an average of 5 interconnections per neuron and 100,000,000,000 (one hundred billion, 10% of our brains) the possible number of calculations is 100 billion to the power of 5.

That's a one followed by 55 zero's. 10 to the 55th power. The best supercomputer in the world, the Connection Machine (all owned by the NSA) with 10,000 interconnected processors has a theoritical output of 36 PFLOPS (PetaFLOPS). That's 3.6 times 10 to the 14th.

Hence, our brains are massively more complex and overall faster than the fastest supercomputers on the planet by at least a couple of orders of magnitude.

keep in mind we have not reached our potential. the brain has been getting bigger with time acording to my history book. i also belive humans are becoming pyshic or something. ive been having dreams at night of the future and what happens in the dream happens in real life. also when around other people people think the same thing other people do at the same time i think we are able to pick up other brain signals and think the same thing and no its not coincidense when it happens every day.
!