5 ms·

...and is it finally coming close to .00001 % of a human brain? If someone is excited about that, what about the human brain itself? Just a simple information:

by lst 18y ago

...and is it finally coming close to .00001 % of a human brain? If someone is excited about that, what about the human brain itself? Just a simple information: The human brain is the most complex thing in the whole universe, or: all of physical universe is less complex than a single human brain.

acro 18y ago
May I ask what is the basis of your estimate on the computational capacity of the human brain?
- timf 18y ago
  Especially pointed question since the statement implies someone has crossed the chasm of the physical universe in order to measure this. (since "all of physical universe is less complex than a single human brain" and the physical universe contains around 6.7 billion brains (that we know of))
  - lst 18y ago
    I said "physical" to exclude the misunderstanding.
    - ryanwaggoner 18y ago
      Pretty sure you failed.
    - timf 18y ago
      My point was that if you are restricting the comparison to the physical universe then logically you must be implying the brain extends beyond the physical universe somehow -- since there is more than one brain in the physical universe. Your subsequent statements in this thread confirmed you have this opinion. If true, then it has an undefined and immeasurable complexity. You can't make all these statements about it, you can't measure it, and you have no context to even begin to talk about it. You can't even make assertions about what the measurement of complexity itself would be ("infinitely more" is just as nonsensical as a finite number more because we do not know what the units of a complexity measurement would be -- if "units" even makes sense in the "beyond").
- lst 18y ago
  Intelligence can't be measured in huge numbers, and every single human brain is infinitely more intelligent than any possible computer. It's not me saying this, but science.
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
  - smanek 18y ago
    infinity You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
    - lst 18y ago
      The "infinity" metaphor is the best description coming to mind in such cases...
  - sgk284 18y ago
    I think you may have a fundamental misunderstanding of life, the universe, and everything. Suppose we can simulate interactions between atoms nearly perfectly on a computer... then it's just a matter of making an atom-for-atom digital replication of the brain (understanding of course that this is all easier said than done, but all possible). Once that is achieved, we optimize and make it even better by thinking faster and more accurately than we ever could. What are you missing from this? Or is hacker news really starting to be trolled... because I might just cry.
    - lst 18y ago
      We should suppose? This is not scientific. Please don't fly too high, keep your feet on the ground. We are not talking about theoretic fantasy, here we talk about practical, real world things. What I really can't stand is this believing in human capacities as if it were some kind of god. We all are very, very limited when it comes to create sophisticated things, just look at how long it took us to create the first computers (see note 1). And we already hit many limits, and this is why current hardware is evolving so slooowly... (Maybe your misunderstanding is quite fundamental?) 1) note: millions of millions of years, if you believe 'evolution' theory; thousands of years, of you believe 'creation' theory
kurtosis 18y ago
So the human brain has about 10^11 neurons and about 10^4 synapses per neuron. Naively representing the state of each synapse with one byte requires 10^15 bytes that's about 500,000 PCs. But neurons aren't necessarily the optimal substrate for "neural" computation. They have a cycle time of about 100 Hz. Electronics are potentially a factor of 10^8 faster. Neurons also have a lot of noise which surely reduces their information transmission capacity. Also there are major constraints on the neural tissue involving power consumption and stability against siezures. Also there are vast sections of the brain e.g. the cerebellum which are apparently devoted to problems like stabilizing posture and making smooth movements which can be solved much easier with electronic controls. It's very plausible that we could achieve a factor of 100 or even 1000 over the brain. The bottleneck is human imagination; we don't have a clue how the thing works.
- lst 18y ago
  That's not the point. The human brain is quite "infinitely" interconnected, and this is something which not only would be really, really hard to solve with a physical machine: it's simply impossible. I understand the fascination of a real super computer, but it's simply nothing compared to a single human brain...
  - anamax 18y ago
    > The human brain is quite "infinitely" interconnected, and this is something which not only would be really, really hard to solve with a physical machine: it's simply impossible. Hmm. How does this "infinitely interconnected" thing work if not by physical means? (In physical, I include electromagnetic waves without a dedicated conductor, not just "wires".)
    - lst 18y ago
      Yes, you are always free to misunderstand. The interesting thing is: some do, some do not. (We have physics, chemistry, and others, exactly to distinguish different levels...)

by lst 18y ago

acro 18y ago

May I ask what is the basis of your estimate on the computational capacity of the human brain?

timf 18y ago
Especially pointed question since the statement implies someone has crossed the chasm of the physical universe in order to measure this. (since "all of physical universe is less complex than a single human brain" and the physical universe contains around 6.7 billion brains (that we know of))
- lst 18y ago
  I said "physical" to exclude the misunderstanding.
  - ryanwaggoner 18y ago
    Pretty sure you failed.
  - timf 18y ago
    My point was that if you are restricting the comparison to the physical universe then logically you must be implying the brain extends beyond the physical universe somehow -- since there is more than one brain in the physical universe. Your subsequent statements in this thread confirmed you have this opinion. If true, then it has an undefined and immeasurable complexity. You can't make all these statements about it, you can't measure it, and you have no context to even begin to talk about it. You can't even make assertions about what the measurement of complexity itself would be ("infinitely more" is just as nonsensical as a finite number more because we do not know what the units of a complexity measurement would be -- if "units" even makes sense in the "beyond").
lst 18y ago
Intelligence can't be measured in huge numbers, and every single human brain is infinitely more intelligent than any possible computer. It's not me saying this, but science.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- smanek 18y ago
  infinity You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
  - lst 18y ago
    The "infinity" metaphor is the best description coming to mind in such cases...
- sgk284 18y ago
  I think you may have a fundamental misunderstanding of life, the universe, and everything. Suppose we can simulate interactions between atoms nearly perfectly on a computer... then it's just a matter of making an atom-for-atom digital replication of the brain (understanding of course that this is all easier said than done, but all possible). Once that is achieved, we optimize and make it even better by thinking faster and more accurately than we ever could. What are you missing from this? Or is hacker news really starting to be trolled... because I might just cry.
  - lst 18y ago
    We should suppose? This is not scientific. Please don't fly too high, keep your feet on the ground. We are not talking about theoretic fantasy, here we talk about practical, real world things. What I really can't stand is this believing in human capacities as if it were some kind of god. We all are very, very limited when it comes to create sophisticated things, just look at how long it took us to create the first computers (see note 1). And we already hit many limits, and this is why current hardware is evolving so slooowly... (Maybe your misunderstanding is quite fundamental?) 1) note: millions of millions of years, if you believe 'evolution' theory; thousands of years, of you believe 'creation' theory

kurtosis 18y ago

So the human brain has about 10^11 neurons and about 10^4 synapses per neuron. Naively representing the state of each synapse with one byte requires 10^15 bytes that's about 500,000 PCs. But neurons aren't necessarily the optimal substrate for "neural" computation. They have a cycle time of about 100 Hz. Electronics are potentially a factor of 10^8 faster. Neurons also have a lot of noise which surely reduces their information transmission capacity. Also there are major constraints on the neural tissue involving power consumption and stability against siezures. Also there are vast sections of the brain e.g. the cerebellum which are apparently devoted to problems like stabilizing posture and making smooth movements which can be solved much easier with electronic controls. It's very plausible that we could achieve a factor of 100 or even 1000 over the brain. The bottleneck is human imagination; we don't have a clue how the thing works.

lst 18y ago
That's not the point. The human brain is quite "infinitely" interconnected, and this is something which not only would be really, really hard to solve with a physical machine: it's simply impossible. I understand the fascination of a real super computer, but it's simply nothing compared to a single human brain...
- anamax 18y ago
  > The human brain is quite "infinitely" interconnected, and this is something which not only would be really, really hard to solve with a physical machine: it's simply impossible. Hmm. How does this "infinitely interconnected" thing work if not by physical means? (In physical, I include electromagnetic waves without a dedicated conductor, not just "wires".)
  - lst 18y ago
    Yes, you are always free to misunderstand. The interesting thing is: some do, some do not. (We have physics, chemistry, and others, exactly to distinguish different levels...)