Is the Human Brain the Fastest Cpu

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
The brain is not a mechanical device and cannot be compared to one because it is much too complex.

Consider all the functions the brain performs to allow a person to play ping pong. All 5 senses, every muscle in body, every background thought, sustaining life functions, and to do it quick enough that a person can actually play at a speed in which the ball can barely be seen.

I would say that the human brain does much more in 1/10th of a second than a CPU does when calculating Pi to 16 millionth place. Fine muscle control of the whole human body could never be accomplished by a computer today, let alone storing and recalling years worth of visual, taste, touch, sound, or smell input and applying it all instantly to every current visual, taste, touch, sound, or smell input that is currently occurring while cross referrencing all of them from past experiences to create a somewhat uniform reaction to situations in all humans.

Try to get a computer to learn something that is not defined in any way shape or form. <Syntax Error>
Click to expand...


so here is the test
1. how fast does a CPU calculate Pi to 16 millionth place
2. how fast does a human brain calculate Pi to 16 millionth place


who wins?

A CPU can't calculate Pi to the 16 millionth place. It can only execute subroutines over and over as programed by a human.

Here's a test for you:

Does a CPU work only using Binary executions?

Does a Human only use Binary executions?

Is a CPU a digital device?

Is a Human a digital device?
 
The brain is not a mechanical device and cannot be compared to one because it is much too complex.

Consider all the functions the brain performs to allow a person to play ping pong. All 5 senses, every muscle in body, every background thought, sustaining life functions, and to do it quick enough that a person can actually play at a speed in which the ball can barely be seen.

I would say that the human brain does much more in 1/10th of a second than a CPU does when calculating Pi to 16 millionth place. Fine muscle control of the whole human body could never be accomplished by a computer today, let alone storing and recalling years worth of visual, taste, touch, sound, or smell input and applying it all instantly to every current visual, taste, touch, sound, or smell input that is currently occurring while cross referrencing all of them from past experiences to create a somewhat uniform reaction to situations in all humans.

Try to get a computer to learn something that is not defined in any way shape or form. <Syntax Error>
Click to expand...


so here is the test
1. how fast does a CPU calculate Pi to 16 millionth place
2. how fast does a human brain calculate Pi to 16 millionth place


who wins?

lol. Not that I want to enter in the debate, but I can't resist:

3. How fast can a CPU program itself to calculate PI?
 
so here is the test
1. how fast does a CPU calculate Pi to 16 millionth place
2. how fast does a human brain calculate Pi to 16 millionth place


who wins?
Click to expand...

So here's a better test:

1: How long will it take for a CPU to discover that Pi exists?
2: How long would it take said CPU to realize the significance of Pi, and apply to to come up with an algorithm for finding the area of a circle?

You can invent "tests" all day long. For everyone you invent, I can invent one that the other will win.
 
yeah? Talk to your MS calculator and ask it what color the SKY is?

what do u think it would do?

i'll tell u what it would do: it would sit there waiting for input.

you can wait till hell freezes over and it still won't answer this simple question.

Computers are stupid and very slow.
Click to expand...
Give it a word processor program and the output would be the illusion of blue (or blue as a simple answer). You wouldn't need to use MS calculator. Of course you would have to make the word processor then again a baby needs to be programmed with a language to answer your question. But that is beside my point. I don't think I made my point very clear at all you are comparing 2 totally different things.
 
...a cpu is is completely and utterly stupid. how many times do i have to say this? :)
Click to expand...

Actually, no matter how many thousands of times you say this, it STILL won't be true. A CPU has no native intelligence, and therefore cannot be stupid. It is a tool, a sophisticated tool, but a tool nonetheless.

... Sorry, Couldn't resist. :twisted:
 
Guys, this is like comparing a knife to a gun - they have two different uses and purposes! Granted, a CPU does similar things at times to the processes that we go through in the brain. But, realistically, a CPU has to function bases on processes and algorithms, and is used as a tool. It may or may not be faster than the brain in certain tasks, but as others here have stated multiple times, the brain is far more adaptable and flexible than a CPU. And it does more too, because it not only processes information, but stores information, translates visual information into something understandable, etc.

If you notice how this thread has gone, the debate has been hampered by the idea that calculations are key to understanding the situation and coming up with a response. A CPU is for making calculations, but a brain is vital for more real-life issues, such as eating, drinking, financial issues, and oh, by the way, there is no way a CPU can have any kind of relationship with a human, unless you want to draw the master/slave picture. Really guys!

Do CPU's and brains compare? No.
 
The human brain is no more the fastest CPU than my car is the fastest chainsaw. Sure, they can both knock down trees, but thats about the limit of their similarities.

That being said, the human brain is FAR more capable than any CPU will be for years to come.
 
The human brain is no more the fastest CPU than my car is the fastest chainsaw. Sure, they can both knock down trees, but thats about the limit of their similarities.

That being said, the human brain is FAR more capable than any CPU will be for years to come.
Click to expand...

Capable is the operative word here. CPU's are better at solving "tasks" where the brain is better at "reasoning out a solution" and "identifying the problem".

Computers suck at reasoning right now but they will get better with time and better designs. Problem identification is probably the hardest early hurdle to intelligence for computers. If a computer can't identify a problem, such as the need to calculate the surface area of a circle, then they are little more than dumb toys. I'm confident this will happen over time as well, but this is a much harder problem to solve for designers of computers.

On a side note, it is not accurate to compare a brain (human or otherwise) to a CPU. You could, however, make the comparison of a human body (brain and all) to a full computer system with CPU, components, and operating system. The body has a fully functional operating system, that the brain is part of, and controls their body - the body's brain, heart, and other organs are part of the complete package and can't exist independently. Just like the OS manipulates the hardware components in a computer system but is also dependent on them to function. This is a much better parallel to draw than just brain and CPU.
 
Will a computer ever be able to do more than it is programmed to do??

Can a computer "learn" if it is not specifically programmed to do so?

As many have already stated: CPU - vs - brain = apples - vs - nails
 
Will a computer ever be able to do more than it is programmed to do??

Can a computer "learn" if it is not specifically programmed to do so?

As many have already stated: CPU - vs - brain = apples - vs - nails
Click to expand...

If we can design programs and computers that can change themselves, then yes, because that is exactly what the brain does.

If you know 1000 people and can name them just by a picture of their face, do you think your brain stores 1000 pictures of them? No, your brain actually just stores enough to recognize them later, even if you see them from the side or back. It is that sort of interpretation of the data (and how the data is stored) that the brain far outpaces the computers of today.

So the answer is that computers right now can do very little that they are not specifically programmed to do.
 
Will a computer ever be able to do more than it is programmed to do??
Can a computer "learn" if it is not specifically programmed to do so?
--snip--
Click to expand...
If we can design programs and computers that can change themselves, then yes, because that is exactly what the brain does.
--snip--
The obvious examples are T2 where the computer becomes "self aware" and decides to kill the humans or The Matrix where the computers decide to turn humans into batteries.

But seriously, I won't say it will never happen, because:
Nobody will ever need more than 640kb of RAM
Click to expand...
but I have a difficult time fathoming the programming / code modifications required (at a code level) for software to "learn" as us fleshbags do.

It boggles my mind. :?

Anyone know of any examples of self-modifying (learning) code as opposed to self-optimizing code? Code that self-modifies to gain new abilities is vastly different that code that self-modifies for optimization (i.e. self-minimizing code).
 
Many expert systems have a form of learning and fuzzy logic.
Click to expand...

I'm only familiar with self-modifying code based on branched execution flow or self-optimizing code ... neither of which I would consider software that is "learning".

Only in a very limited sense would I consider a system that behaves differently based on the pattern of inputs of the user (like expert systems?) as a "learning" system, as it has been coded to specifically look for and repond in a set manner based on the trends of input. There is no self-modification of code occuring, and therefore the system responses are limited by code and unalterable by the system.

Which leads me to conclude that a true learning system needs to be able to self-modify code! Comments?

Edit: Sorry if I seem to be hijacking the thread, but the conversation flow has got me to thinking, and I'm quite intrigued.

Edit Again: I've started a new thread. It's here: http://forumz.tomshardware.com/software/close-computers-Aware-ftopict234399.html Post replies there please.
 
wow - I can't believe this thread is still alive.

BTW - google's webcrawlers have already log this convo... analyzed it... and optimized it for search patterns.

We may "talk" about who's smarter here... but be carfeful... the computers are listening.

:lol:
 
I've liked your posts here, and I basically agree, but you're not quite right on your last point. The point isn't that we're asking a question that can't be answered, but we've not even got so far as asking a question. It's all complete nonsense, akin to 'piggly-wiggly'.

Comparing the brain to a CPU is a metaphor. It may even be a powerful metaphor. But to then think one can compare them as if there were some common measure is idiotic.

Compare:
I can think of my loneliness as a cloud. But which is really more lonely?
I can think of my brain as a CPU. But which is the fastest?

"Philosophical problems arise when language goes on holiday." Wittgenstein.
 
beeer n candy, your test method is one dimensional.

the test that's needed is "can a cpu control a human body?

If a cpu can control a human body then we could start to say which is faster a human brain or a cpu.

we are talking about a comparison between a brain and a cpu aren't we?

cpu's are dumb, there is no comparison
 
"A CPU has no native intelligence, and therefore cannot be stupid. It is a tool, a sophisticated tool, but a tool nonetheless." bur

thnx for seeing my side bur....however,

Logic Test:
A CPU has no native intelligence. - True
therefore a cpu cannot be stupid. - True or FALSE?

more input is needed....please explain urself in greater detail.
 
therefore a cpu cannot be stupid. - True or FALSE?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Now we really are getting into semantics, but according to Webster:

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>
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom