Now we really are getting into semantics, but according to Webster:
Quote :
Stupid:
1 a : slow of mind : OBTUSE b : given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner c : lacking intelligence or reason : BRUTISH
2 : dulled in feeling or sensation : TORPID <still stupid from the sedative>
3 : marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting : SENSELESS <a stupid decision>
4 a : lacking interest or point <a stupid event> b : VEXATIOUS, EXASPERATING <the stupid car won't start>
So I guess in a sense (1c or 4b), CPUs can be stupid.
But, as someone else mentioned, the CPU hasn't been built yet that can handle and coordinate the thousands of nervous inputs and body functions that the human brain does on a daily basis (at least at the speed it does, though it does get a lot of help from the spine). And I am not even counting an active thought process here.
This is not to say that a brain is superior or not, just that they are not the same thing, and to compare them as such is to do an injustice to the complexity of the human brain.
therefore a cpu cannot be stupid. - True or FALSE?
If you want to get into semantics:
"That new dual core chip is stupid fast."
I once was told by a math teacher that the scientific calculators we were using were stupid because they had have the numbers typed into them opposite of what's normally done. First thing that came to mind what "stupid programmers then."
A CPU being stupid? Nah. It's only it's strengths lie in other places.
What did he consider the way its normally done? I've had to program (assembly code, REAL programming there) chips to act as calculators in standard (infix), prefix, and postfix (Reverse Polish) notation for various school projects. All are valid means, and all have their advantages and disadvantages from a computing standpoint.
This also can also serve as another comparison between the brain and a CPU. For a standard mathematical equation (infix), say 5*(3+4), we can immediately go to the innermost parenthesis and work outward, whereas a CPU (more calculator or computer), must read the entire expression before beginning calculation.
On the other hand, postfix is more efficient from a calculator standpoint. The same expression as above would now be 534+*, which is much more difficult for a person to read than a computer, but the computer can begin processing as soon as it reads the first operator, while it is still reading in the rest of the equation.
For certain applications, postfix calculators are considered superior to normal calculators.
The human brain contains approximately 100 billion neurons which operates at a frequenzy of 200Hz each. The total speed is thus 20THz compared to the 4GHz of a regular processor. The brain is therefore 5000 times faster than a processor. A processor uses on average 4 steps to complete an operation which yields a work capacity of 1Gflops. That process is limited to add, subtract, multiply and divide and is only 64 bit wide. The human brain can be much wider than 64 bit and has a lot of other functions such as moving a bodypart in three dimensions. In addition to that the human brain usually only stores and retrieves information. It rarely processes it. The CPU on the other hand always processes the information, as it cannot do pattern matching, as it is static and not dynamic as the brain. Once a dynamic optical CPU is being manufactured, AI will be a possibility. And the robots receiving such brains will be MUCH more intelligent and brighter than us.
1. We don't know how many 'operations' a single neuron performs, because we don't know what the input _represents_, and we don't know what the output _represents_. The '200 hz' figure you appear to have plucked from thin air would, even it did mean something, not refer to raw processing speed as a CPU's frequency would.
2. Same point really: the brain does not use binary, tertiary or any other simple code! The two aren't directly comparable.
3. Moving a bodypart also requires muscles. We are inclined to think it all is controlled in the brain, but this is actually incorrect. A lot of muscular control is carried out elsewhere.
BUT BIGGEST OF ALL:
4. How can you simply multiply the 'processing speed' of each neuron in order to get the overall speed? Do you know how they operate simultaneously? No. You haven't got a clue.
Stop being a retard and stick to computers, where you can spout geetistics at people willy nilly. Leave speculation about artificial intelligence to people with intelligence.
The human brain contains approximately 100 billion neurons which operates at a frequenzy of 200Hz each. The total speed is thus 20THz compared to the 4GHz of a regular processor. The brain is therefore 5000 times faster than a processor. A processor uses on average 4 steps to complete an operation which yields a work capacity of 1Gflops. That process is limited to add, subtract, multiply and divide and is only 64 bit wide. The human brain can be much wider than 64 bit and has a lot of other functions such as moving a bodypart in three dimensions. In addition to that the human brain usually only stores and retrieves information. It rarely processes it. The CPU on the other hand always processes the information, as it cannot do pattern matching, as it is static and not dynamic as the brain. Once a dynamic optical CPU is being manufactured, AI will be a possibility. And the robots receiving such brains will be MUCH more intelligent and brighter than us.
Worst-post yet.
1) There is no accurate measure of the number of neurons in the human brain. It's all estimations.
2) You're assuming that the brain uses all neurons simulataneously. The brain actually only uses a small percent at any given time.
3) A CPU operates at a set frequency. Neurons are action/reaction-based. The frequency at which they operate can be measured with Brain wave scans, but they don't process "commands per second". You can't compare brain frequency with CPU frequency.
4) A CPU has a bus in which data is transferred (32 or 64 bits, typically). A neuron has only one analogous output, and usually have hundreds or thousands of inputs. Moreover, 1 Hz in the brain merely means a neuron has fired, and that just means that part of a much larger equation has been solved. 1 CPU Hz could mean 6 or 7 different operations have executed (Such as add/subtract/fetch/store/etc).
4) AI has nothing to do with the processor type (optical or otherwise). As stated earlier, a Neural network chip has already been manufactured, and AI still does not exist.
You managed to cram the most amount of BS into a single post of anyone here. Congrats.
There are hearing research studies that show the human ear/brain has impressive bandwidth*. The accuracy the ear/brain time response estimates are up to debate but given the quality of measurements being made, "conjecture" is just not a fair assessment.
*: although I doubt they compete with the best CPUs and GPUs
vett guy, you show us your intelligence, which appears to be nil.
have u ever seen "nil" ?
Cup some air with your fist, then measure the volume of air inside ur fist, take that measurement and add 1, you will find it is equal to the size of ur brain.
Why are you insulting me? I didn't insult you, i just pointed out a fact. Most people get one star'd for saying something stupid, or wrong, or insulting... you got one star'd for being in love with a robot. :?
:trophy::trophy::trophy::trophy::trophy::trophy::trophy:
