If we compare the human brain to a computer >yes I know, le

So if we compare the two, thoughts and conscious brain processes parallel software. By this logic, would subconsious processes be the brain's BIOS? Could a person's personality/consciousnes be considered the brain's Operating system? Would split personality disorders be a dual boot brain so to speak, and could someone basically create a blank partition of their brain or emulate another mind or something like that to learn another language from scratch and think in that language?

Also, why do we think in a language? Why not have raw thoughts and ideas with no words attached? Babies don't have a language to think in, but surely the still have thoughts. Thinking in a spoken language just seams so inefficient. I can have an idea and have it flash in my head in an instant and understand it and use it, by most of the time I have a voice in my heads slowly speaking out the idea. Why is this, and can we revert back to "raw" thought without language?

File: spatial-0.png (34KB, 409x220px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 409x220px

>>7936128
>Also, why do we think in a language
Go ahead and solve this spatial reasoning task and tell me if you used language to do it.

Your posts are so riddled with assumptions and lapses in reasoning that they're not worth addressing. You just need to read more about the topics you seem to believe you have a firm grasp on.

>>7936164
Solve what exactly? That just looks like a net of a cube with color codes sides. Absolutely no need for language to understand how a cube is made from the net.

>>7936230
lmao OP just stop

>>7936164
>Your posts are so riddled with assumptions and lapses in reasoning that they're not worth addressing. You just need to read more about the topics you seem to believe you have a firm grasp on.

this desu.

>>7936164
The correct answer is 4 right?

I think people need to stop making analogies between computers and brains

>>7936243
its the first one you tool

/sci/, I know there's lots of proof for evolution, I know we can see it happening right before our eyes but, still, how could the brain have just "evolved" by itself? Just think how ridiculously complex a microprocessor is, the brain is many many times more complex. I can't wrap my head around it...

>>7936128
>Why not have raw thoughts and ideas with no words attached?
I do have that
Maybe you're just stupid

File: 1447463800677.jpg (13KB, 526x526px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 526x526px

>>7936115
jesus christ, are you a stay-at-home-mom or in grade 9? This gave me cancer. Please learn 2 electrical and computer engineering.
"Would split personality disorders be a dual boot brain so to speak"
This made me think it's probably just a good troll though. We shouldn't feed it anymore. FUCKING DUAL BOOT. I'LL FUCKING RAPE YOUR FAMILY DUAL BOOT

>>7936252
Dinosaurs had brains 230 million years ago
they didn't just pop into being one day its a slow gradual process.
People who have trouble understanding evolution usually neglect to take into consideration the sheer immensity of time involved.

>>7936250
No I'm pretty sure 4 is the only possible one, I checked with a Rubik's Cube.

>>7936266
Black isnt on top you stupid fucking idiot

>>7936266
If black were rotated to be on top the light and dark grey would be in reverse order, you brainlet.

>>7936264
"Lots of time" still doesn't seem like a proper answer. The brain seems too complex for random mutation and natural selection to have led to its creation.

>>7936269
Retard.
>>7936276
No they wouldn't, just check it physically.

File: 546.jpg (52KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 480x270px

>>7936279
>"Lots of time" still doesn't seem like a proper answer

>>7936285
Why can't you see?

File: 9junio12.jpg (12KB, 464x231px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 464x231px

>>7936283
Reverse image search the picture
The answer is A
You fucking worthless braindead piece of shit
You cant even solve a simple test for 6 year olds

>>7936287
They're wrong you fucking dickface, I've checked and checked, it's D.

File: imARetardSendHelp.jpg (78KB, 818x440px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 818x440px

>>7936164

>>7936311
This doesn't prove anything, it's just labeled the faces with letters.
I've got a cube in front of me and I'm telling you it's D.

File: 1457473965433.jpg (44KB, 415x407px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 415x407px

>>7936322

>>7936324
I'm convinced you're "trolling".

File: ya.png (360KB, 668x1000px) Image search: [Google]

360KB, 668x1000px

>>7936329

>>7936338
Yeah OK buddy.

>>7936128
You can't honestly believe we only think in words, and you certainly can't believe we think in grammatically complete sentences like it's just reading a book or something.

>most of the time I have a voice in my heads slowly speaking out the idea

Well then you might have some sort of disability, because that is definitely not normal. Most thoughts come as archetypal abstractions, and if there is direct language in thought it's usually scattered and disconnected words linked to said abstraction.

For example, if I lose my phone, I don't "hear" my brain ask the question "Where is my phone?" in a nice complete sentence, but rather there's an abstract awareness that I don't have a particular piece of information (in this case, the location of my phone), followed immediately by a memory search of what situation I was last using my phone as well as possible locations it could be. None of this process takes the form of defined words or sentences. The only reason people have the idea that we think in words is because we often have to convert our raw mental processes into a verbal construction for communication purposes, so there is an association there. If you really want to compare this to a computer, language is just a series of pointers to the actual memory locations themselves. The pointer is meaningless without the associated memory, but the memory doesn't need to have a pointer to exist, nor is it in any way defined by its pointer.

>>7936252
It was an extremely long and gradual process. Nervous system complexity is a positive trait and so organisms with more complex brains are more likely to survive and pass on their genes. It's all pretty logical...

>>7936370
>Nervous system complexity is a positive trait

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAH

NO.

Guess how fast species lose eyes when they move into cave-like environments.

Large brains cost energy. LOTS OF ENERGY.

>>7936378
>implying eyesight loss from low light levels has anything to do with anything
>implying physical size of a brain is worth mentioning in this conversation
>implying you're not retarded

File: maximum_b8_gif.gif (60KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 200x200px

>>7936115
>>7936119
>>7936128

File: images.jpg (8KB, 242x208px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 242x208px

>>7936370
>organisms with more complex brains are more likely to survive

Theres 100 trillion ants in the world and they have rudimentary "brains"

That water bear motherfucker is a dumbass yet he can survive in space

so yeah that isnt true

File: shiggidy.jpg (6KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 250x250px

>>7936392
>implying nervous system complexity is not related to energy expenditure
>implying you can grasp simple ideas

>>7936419
I'm referring to organisms within a species, not all life ever. The more intelligent ants live longer on average than the stupid ants

>>7936426
>implying it needed to be said that more complex systems use more energy
>implying this fact in any way supports your argument

>>7936378
It's about energy efficiency, not how much you use.

File: shig.jpg (7KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 200x200px

>>7936455
>implying your dubs going to help here
>implying fitness is always correlated with neural complexity

>>7936471
>implying dubs can ever not help someone in an argument
>implying it was implied that fitness is always correlated to neural complexity
>implying that implications were implied from previous implications
>inferring that implications previously inferred as being implied were in fact inferential implications

File: aestheticshiggidy.jpg (142KB, 570x570px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 570x570px

>>7936493
Nervous system complexity is a positive trait
>implying that claim was not implied but just a ruse
>implying that this conversation is your victory
>implying that I can't imply straw man beat
>imply me yet again
pls don't

>>7936309
Only D if you mirror the original shape desu

>>7936520
>implying my dad can't beat up your dad

teenkid dank memers run another thread into the ground

>>7936322
I'm dead sure it's B

>>7936311
Oh haha, I was laying it with the faces down instead of up. I'm silly.

>>7936115

Relating computers to brains is like relating a canvas to a paintbrush.

>buh cumputars and brains are similar
Well yes, we based the creation of computers off of our own "structure" so duh they will relate.

You are taking a painting of a paintbrush and pretending to have euphoric discoveries about the paintbrush that painted it as if nobody knew.

>subconsious is brains bios
No, the Bios of a computer is like a Brain's subconsious. Keyword: LIKE.

The subconsious is not an "underlieing base" for the rest of the brain structure. The subconsious is more like background ram process that you dont need to click to operate.

A computer is made up of multiple components, whereas a brain is literally just "one" component.
>inb4 but diff parts do diff things

>>7937255
but diff parts do diff things

>>7936164
That maybe we still think mostly in language.

>>7936115
how can minds be real if brains are not real?

>>7936115
within the brain sciences we use the mind as a computer analogy to further our scientific understanding

what you are saying is that the mind is a computer and you can dual boot mac osx and windows on it