A state-of-the-art gaming PC pulling about 500W can barely render

File: 1406284531881.png (8KB, 363x364px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 363x364px

Great thread, OP.
I'm sure this thread will be filled with lots of insightful comments.

>>51416312
>I don't know the answer to that question
>Must be bait lol

I wonder how you guys function in exams.

>>51416400
>I wonder how you guys function in exams
you're assuming most of them have an education

I like your description of tubes and salty water, though

>>51416297
the human brain uses much more than 12 watts m8

>>51416297
Partially because that high resolution only applies to what you are looking right at. The peripheral vision is significantly lower quality. On the flip side, the GPU has to fill the whole screen at the same resolution all at once because it doesn't know what you're looking at. Also, your vision is more akin to a video stream than a CG render; it's just your brain processing a "camera" feed.

>>51416583
This

>>51416583
/thread

>>51416297
The brain isn't rendering anything. You can't compare the two at all. The brain's signal processing is completely analog. Part of a consequence is that the image we are seeing is in a way directly derived from the photons hitting our retinas. People usually overestimate the similarity between the brain and a computer. They are really not that similar at all, an easy way to see this is to look how shitty both processors are at typical tasks of the other one: The brain fucking sucks at calculating numbers, and a CPU is basically incapable of actual intelligence/learning/adapting/problem solving.

>>51416463
Usually the brain's power consumption is estimated between 10-15 watts.

>>51416297

your brain doesn't render anything at all , it interprets nerve impulses

>>51416297
The brain is more compact and specialized, while computers are really adaptable and expendable and are therefore slower. There's also the fact that the images we render in our brains are, in reality, no more realistic than that in a videogame.

>>51416692
I believe it does. You are physically viewing in 2D while the brain interpolates your entire 3D experience from the 2D data. That's pretty fucking impressive .

>>51416297
I've always wondered if it's difficult being retarded

>>51416297
>a vastly superior picture
that's what you think, nerd

it's all in your head

>>51416726
That's bot what the brain is doing...
Do you ever wonder what two eyes are for?

>>51416312

>Sarcastic asshole shitposter thinks he's super cool.
>Gets BTFO when there actually is insightful and well conceived comments.

naisu

cerebrospinal fluid isn't salty water, but ok
also not how neurons work at all, but ok

>>51416748
What bodily organ do you think is responsible for assembling the 2 2D images. Moron.

>>51416737

I think i know what time it is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQzNZR-LXZc

>>51416673
>Usually the brain's power consumption is estimated between 10-15 watts.
Actually, I looked it up again and I am mistaken. It's apparently 20-40 watts (That's wikipedia). It's hard to find well reasoned sources though. It just seems to be one of those numbers floating around with nobody knowing where exactly they come from.

>>51416702
>The brain is more compact and specialized, while computers are really adaptable and expendable and are therefore slower.
It's exactly the other way around. Our brains are highly adaptable with it's physical structure literally changing depending on the situations, something which CPUs are light years away from. CPUs can do like a few dozens tricks, that's it. Everything else is programming, which has to be done by brains.

>>51416673
> The brain's signal processing is completely analog
What are you talking about?
Neurons either reach the excitement threshold and fire their neurotransmitter load or they don't. It's not a continuum. The brain is literally a digital computer.

>>51416770
No, it's not. You are wrong about this. Look it up and you'll see a lot of instances where representation of information in our brains is fuzzy.

>>51416764
Triangulation isn't that complex, I wouldn't describe it as "pretty fucking impressive"

>>51416780
Fuzzy or lossy doesn't mean analog. You'd think you'd know the difference after being here so long.

He's right. Neurons follow an all-or-nothing strategy where impulses that don't exceed a threshold are not transmitted, and those that do are transmitted at full force.

>>51416297
Hey I saw this exact same thread on /v/, too. Did you ask on /sci/, though? I think you'd be more likely to get a good answer there.

>>51416796
By the look of this thread he's probably going to get the best answer he's going to get right here.

>>51416801
Well, he got pretty much the same answers here as in the other thread
>>>/v/317109301

>>51416770
>tfw that last sentence hits you

>>51416672
Yeah and how about dreams?

12W could be used to power all of Africa for a month. Why do you still use your brain, anon?

Millions of years of evolution vs a hundred years of scientists dicking around

Wow such a difficult concept to grasp.

>>51416788
1. Try it on your computer. Feed it with two images with a slight parallax and try to extract a depth image. It's as complex as a problem gets. Hard mode: Use imperfectly exposed images. Good luck.

2. Our brain does not actually do triangulation. The things it can do are NOT hard coded. There is no part of our brain that does triangulation. It has no knowledge about what it really is doing. It learns solely by being fed with different kinds of information. Newborns are in fact not capable of spatial vision. Every human ever has to learn these things by trial and error. It is pretty fucking impressive how adaptive those things are.

>>51416795
You don't seem to know what analog means. The information is not stored digitally. There are configurations of proteins of all kinds in our neurons that somehow represent information. It's only very superficially understood.

>>51416823

>>51416838
God mode: make mirrors work

>>51416876
We don't really see in dreams. We are more or less pretending to see things. It all happens on a more abstract layer. Do you know how sometimes people appear in your dreams that you actually know, but you rarely actually remember their faces or any other evidence that it was in fact them. You only remember it was them, sometimes you even remember that they didn't even look at all like those people. Whatever happens in dreams is much more blurry than real life. It's pretty fucking strange, but tells you a lot about what consciousness is.

>>51416823
>disable camera
>render random 3d environment
>render random camera path
>your camera is now the camera in a 3d world

Bonus: override camera pathing function and get lucid dream

>>51416297
it was created by God, not a human or robot

>>51416914
Lucid dream fags would disagree with you

>>51416938
Oh so we can finaly agree that brain is actually rendering something.

>>51416297
The brain has been in development for millions of years
Computers have been in development for less than 100

File: insane troll.png (12KB, 231x218px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 231x218px

>>51416297
YEAH, SPLAIN, SPLAIN, IT'S FUGGIN WEIRD!

>>51416702
>>51416737
>subjective, ur mental images are only about as good as a video game's

I will let you have this because it's true enough.

>>51416762
>u fail neuroscience forever

Okay.

>>51416823
>>51416914
EXPLAIN THIS: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98447

>TL;DR: no brain activity, they still have thoughts, and even dreams

File: dancing troll.gif (42KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 400x400px

TELL US, /g/!!!

TELL US HOW PEOPLE HAVE DREAMS WITH NO BRAIN ACTIVITY WHEN THEY'RE DEAD FOR A WHILE IN THE HOSPITAL!!!

>you can't

Exactly.

>nobody tries to reason with me

I guess I was too obvious.

>tfw have reason to believe I might have, but no sure proof that I definitely have, woken up from pallor mortis and
>the dream I was having, was that I was wandering some other world
>which didn't really have much to it, actually, at all
>it was like I was walking a path, and the surroundings were mostly darkness and some dim colors amongst the darkness
>eventually, much like a video game, I ended up fighting battles, because monsters attacked me
>and eventually, I encountered, a dragon, and it was going to breathe fire at me, so, I slit it's neck with my sword, and then, woke up

Well, I highly doubt it was hell, more of a icy cold void with a little energy in it.

>>51417761
>Well, I highly doubt it was hell, more of an icy cold void with a little energy in it.

(inb4 grammar nazis)

I'm pretty sure it (whatever it was) would have kind of imploded upon itself into nonexistance and taken my soul out with it if I didn't wake up right as I slit the dragon's neck for breathing fire at me in my dream (which, I am able to recall, bit by bit). Whatever that was. I experienced it like I was wandering some other world, but the scale of it couldn't have in any way have been much.

>it was hellish, yes, but not in a 'this is where teh souls burn for eternity' way
>more of a 'this desolate place is fading from existance, and, the denizens all hate you' kind of way

It's quite possible that it may have existed, or might actually still exist, and my actions there had no bearing upon it's existance. I'm not sure. (if I destroyed it, I can forgive myself simply because it was kind of a mercy killing if I did)

Blind people can't see shit. Still using energy. Dead pc can't render shit. Using zero energy. Xplain op.

(the path lead to, a dark place, anything that was there, was ruins (including a delapidated castle), the few denizens of that place I encountered, were extremely resentful, most would call them monsters, and they wanted to fight me, but the key word here is that it was desolate, there wasn't much to it)

What a strange dream.

>>51416297
first, your hunk of organics is highly specialised for the task
second, you're rendering way inferior images in your head. it's all about god-tier approximation and ability to ignore obvious flaws.

>>51416297
Because a human brain is better. What needs explaining?