It seems like no matter how powerful technology gets we'll

If we engineered a biological computer, it would be much better than the brain.

>>8213070
We'll be able to create artificial neural networks that mimic subconscious mind - specialized artificial intelligence - probably not consciousness.
But we don't need that - we can serve the role of the leading power - the conscious decision making for that machine.

It could present us by he virtue of its inner work with the major decisions it has to go trough and we will pick for it, just like our subconscious mind it will do stuff that double to triple our mental power and capacities - but never will be aware of them or in control of important, potentially threatening decisions.

We have sleep-walking cases of people that were able to operate vehicles in busy cities, or people that shut down their conscious mind and do extraordinary tasks with precission.

Such cases are often presented via hypnosis - where groups of people with no real talent in painting, could pain decent stuff if their conscious mind would be shut down for a period of time, and rather let all their brain resources be allocated for an task implanted from outside.

That's what we need unconscious complex machines to do our work.

And that's possible.

>>8213070

>imagine a brain as simply being a carbon based organic computer

That's precisely what a brain is.

>>8213070
>It seems like no matter how powerful technology gets we'll never be able to duplicate the processing power of the human brain with metal and wires.

lol, how can you possibly know that?

The Industrial Revolution was literally 300 years ago, and computers have only existed for some 50 years, if that.

There's no telling where technology will be in 100 years, just as it would be impossible to explain the concept of a smartphone to a person living in the early 20th century.

>>8213160
>just as it would be impossible to explain the concept of a smartphone to a person living in the early 20th century.
lolwat? There were stories written about this shit back then. We're machines of finite mind. Nothing we do changes all that much, and they'd readily understand.

You could even explain this shit to an ancient babylonian. baka tbhq senpai.

>>8213165
Ironic shitposting is still shitposting, fagtron.

kys

Why would you do that? so you can use someones brain as a webserver, for example? or as a harddrive for your files?

>>8213070
>It seems like no matter how powerful technology gets we'll never be able to duplicate the processing power of the human brain with metal and wires.
[citation needed]

>>8213070
Y computers are likely to be able to surpass the computing power of a brain. A few computers are roughly capable of computing the estimated human computing power of 36.8 petaflops today

>>8213379
How do yout know its 36.8 petflops? Srsly, Floating Point Operations in the brain??

>>8213388
Wikipedia claims it on "Computer performance by orders of magnitude" and my prof (who does research related to neural nets) said that computers are expected to surpass the computing power of the human brain in 5-10 years.

>>8213331

>being this retarded

>>8213070

Just reverse engineer it.

>>8213070
I don't know that we necessarily can't develop computers that compete with the brain directly, there just hasn't been a real demand for hardware akin to neural architecture, and thus little interest in creating it thusfar. If/when we get round to it this hardware will pwn us as it won't have the same size and power constraints as the human brain.

File: image.jpg (57KB, 320x416px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 320x416px

>>8213070
>I guess they'd turn out to be emotionless people with extreme proficiency in logical thinking. Maybe surgically plugging in their brain via a wire to the back of the head or neck to allow them to be used could work.

Literally how to create the perfect goy

>>8213070
Brain's power comes from tremendous amount of parallel computing (billions of neurons) and heuristics. Individual neurons are alone too slow.

>>8213153
well, except a computer is also the thing with a keyboard for human input and a display and all those goodies.

>>8213479
sure, just do it!

>>8213700

The display of your brain is your consciousness, and the keyboard are your nipples.

We don't need to reinvent the wheel. Intelligence already exists. Manipulating it is proving much easier, much more intuitive than recreating it from scratch.

Years from now we will look at our AI adventure and see what a complete waste of time it was.

>>8213083
We have engineered biological computers.

>>8213700
There's a difference between a computer and a personal computer.

>>8213070
The brain dies and withers, synthetic substrates do not.

It's only a matter of time before artificial computers surpass the brain.

We don't even know what the spooky parts of the brain do exactly, so speculating on the power of the brain won't do much good.

>>8213070
Evolution my friend, autistics are this, less emotion and social capabilities, more computing power.

>>8214647
You mean the people beating off to my little pony?

>>8214647
Autistic people rarely have children.
They are evolutionary dead-ends; their autism is caused by everything from genetics to environmental exposure of neurotoxins.
Also, not all autism is the "good" kind.
>right "WOOWEE"??

Those artificially made people may serve another purpose beyond being a computer.

With their exceptional logical and analytical skill without the emotional and social parts of the brain to mar their reasoning, they could be great decision makers. Maybe could serve as a military commander or politician where every move must be precisely calculated to a mathematical degree. Also without the sentimental parts of the brain they would have a reduced sense of ego and wouldn't be selfish, just fully altruistic and willing to serve the people.

I can see it as an accessory unit but nothing more

You could have functions where you call the "biological unit"

isitblack() sends a query to the biological unit asking if it's black or not, and the biological unit answers

It has its uses, it would simplify a lot of algorithms

>>8213070
what would happen if we downloaded everything that happened since it's creation to right now on 4chan in a AI?

>>8213160
>just as it would be impossible to explain the concept of a smartphone to a person living in the early 20th century.
Maybe the early 18th century.

>>8213070
>the processing power of the human brain
This "processing power" is pretty good,
but it's mostly devoted to balance, co-
ordination, vision, speech, and metabolic
activities. all of which are only slightly
better than that of other animals.

>>8215109
>since it's creation
>since it is creation
We would need to devote
a large portion to grammar.

>>8213070
>>It seems like no matter how powerful technology gets we'll never be able to duplicate the power of hands with stone.

>It seems like no matter how powerful technology gets we'll never be able to duplicate the power of gods with fire.

>It seems like no matter how powerful technology gets we'll never be able to duplicate the power of nature with agriculture.

>It seems like no matter how powerful technology gets we'll never be able to duplicate the power of the human scribes with metal and wood.

>It seems like no matter how powerful technology gets we'll never be able to duplicate the power of horses with metal and wires.

>It seems like no matter how powerful technology gets we'll never be able to duplicate the flight of birds with metal and wires.

>>8215264
It's impossible for humans to create an intelligence greater than themselves. We can't even conceive of an intelligence better than us since all we have is ourselves, so how could we create one?

>>8215280
man shut the fuck up

>>8215264
slippery slope fallacy

>>8213070
>It seems like no matter how powerful technology gets we'll never be able to duplicate the processing power of the human brain with metal and wires

Why would you make an assumption, that no matter how far modern science advances we will never be able to replicate the human brain.

>>8215280
>We can't even conceive of an intelligence better than us since all we have is ourselves, so how could we create one?

Ancient Romans and barbarians coudn't conceive quantum computers, so how can their descendants create one?

>>8215296
I agree, but ancient Romans, most likely wouldn't be able to conceive modern computers at least.

>>8213070
>It seems like no matter how powerful technology gets we'll never be able to duplicate the processing power of the human brain with metal and wires
What is human brain project

File: 1459001278909.jpg (53KB, 403x403px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 403x403px

>>8215280
>It's impossible for humans to create an intelligence greater than themselves.

>what is a calculator
>what is a spreadsheet
>what is DeepBlue
>what is AlphaGo
etc.

Depends on the context, and that context keeps expanding.

Isn' really possible.
Machine calculates in base of their "bits", the same base for information.

Human use mind to calculate and neurons is the base of the mind.
Neurons are like our "bits", if we use their as machines use bits we will probably fall into madness or die. So we can't use neurons as bits but potentially neurons make ultra-complicated calcules.

My english is almost basic so let me excuse me for it.

>>8215393
>Neurons are like our "bits"

That's not how the brain works.

>>8215280
>it's impossible for single-celled organisms to ever result in anything greater than themselves!

>>8215280
>It's impossible for humans to create an intelligence greater than themselves.

It's impossible for a bunch of particles to have mind..

>>8215446
>It's impossible for a bunch of particles to have mind.

You are made of particles. By formal syllogism, you have no mind.

>>8215450
I think he was being sarcastic

>>8215280
Nice bait.

If
>>8215450
is true, then
>>8215280
is true.

Computer systems latch a signal to a 0 or a 1 when the reality is intermediate.

The activity through synapses is not processing. Neurons simply respond a certain way to certain chemicals, yes?

Can someone explain to me what it means for DNA to be "read" to form the complete organism? Compounds simply respond a certain way and we can't reduce it to anything less than "that's just the way it is".

Feel free to make fun of me if this is wrong.

>>8213153
That's the biggest pop sci misconception faggot myth I keep hearing. A brain is nothing like a computer.

File: BuddyChrist[1].jpg (31KB, 370x284px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 370x284px

>>8215280
>We can't even conceive of an intelligence better than us

>>8215584
>The activity through synapses is not processing. Neurons simply respond a certain way to certain chemicals, yes?
Everything in the universe responds a certain way when some thing happens to it.
Also, logic gates.

>>8215837
Yes it is
>inb4 some strawman about von Neumann architecture

>>8217227
you literally added nothing. in fact you probably took away

>>8213070
It may be because the 1's and 0's that a modern computer uses are digital. Ours are literal, real, you can count and feel them; albeit they're on a microscopic level.
I'm not saying that literal 1's and 0's are better, it's that mentality that resulted in those school gym sized calculators. However, the computation in our brain is literally nothing more than open and closed synapses. However, those synapses are microbial and adaptable, and it's that micro scale adaptability that may be why our brains are generally better. However, take a look at quantum computers; they use physical 1's and 0's that don't really exist and thus are adaptable to whatever is required. Which makes sense as to why they're better than both our brains and digital computers.

File: Robobrain.png (878KB, 723x815px) Image search: [Google]

878KB, 723x815px

>>8213070
>/sci/ plays Fallout

>>8215837

does the brain have an output that is dependent on electrical/chemical input? yes?

is computer my man

>>8217232

is it?

so perform the same algorithm one million times without a break

checkmate meatball!

>>8219366
The brain is not developed independently of its environment.