Our Brains Don't Work Like Computers 737
Roland Piquepaille writes "We're using computers for so long now that I guess that many of you think that our brains are working like clusters of computers. Like them, we can do several things 'simultaneously' with our 'processors.' But each of these processors, in our brain or in a cluster of computers, is supposed to act sequentially. Not so fast! According to a new study from Cornell University, this is not true, and our mental processing is continuous. By tracking mouse movements of students working with their computers, the researchers found that our learning process was similar to other biological organisms: we're not learning through a series of 0's and 1's. Instead, our brain is cascading through shades of grey."
comparisons (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:comparisons (Score:5, Insightful)
By 2015... (Score:3, Funny)
of course, it will be as large as a four storey building, take all the power of Niagara falls to run it, and all of the water of Niagara falls to cool it.
Re:By 2015... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:comparisons (Score:5, Insightful)
Unlikely. First, what they are saying here is that there is no clock. The brain is fundamentally analog in both state and TIME. To "simulate" it using computer algorithms would likely require finely stepped integrators for every connection of every neuron and every chemical pathway. Even the modeling of the blood flow and its nutrients is likely critical to a successful simulation of the thought process in some way. Its not at all like a normal computing problem. Its more like computing physics. We'd need processors like the new PhysX chip though vastly more sophisticated. I'm thinking that a high fidelity of all of the connections of a single neuron in real time would likely take a full chip.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that we'll even be close to understanding how to teach the simulation if we created it. I'd put better odds on the creation of some sensing technology that could fully map the physical connections and the electrochemical state of every neuron and other component involved in thought (does anyone really think we know all of the components?). And I'd still place those odds very low.
And what if we could simulate it... should we? It is likely that we'd create many insane intelligences in the process, either because we didn't duplicate the processes close enough, didn't put in all of the instinct portions of the brain that actually have much more to do with true intelligence than the thinking portions, didn't provide the inputs that they were designed to have, or tried to improve on a analog machine with a complexity level far beyond modern math's ability to balance. And, whether or not its true, many would call them life. Turning them off would likely be considered the same as killing them. The ethical dilemmas that would come about are tremendous.
Re:comparisons (Score:5, Insightful)
That's wrong. Godel's Theorem shows that there exist true theorems that are unprovable -- by humans or computers. It doesn't say humans can "demonstrate" them better than a machine. At best, it shows you can "guess" a theorem (and wave your hands to make it seem plausible) and no one is able to DISprove it, but not that a human could "demonstrate" its truth when a machine couldn't. A mathematical proof is purely logical and computers can verify and generate these proofs, if not yet as elegantly as humans.
Re:comparisons (Score:3, Insightful)
Godel's theorems CANNOT be used to prove that the brain is smarter than the computer - in fact, human brains are ALSO governed by the theorem.
Please do a search on "Emperor's New Mind" and "Shadow of the Mind", and challenge yourself to find the known flaws in them.
Re:comparisons (Score:5, Informative)
But a computer cannot demonstrate this truth. I don't claim to understand why not, but it clearly says in the wikipedia article that it can't.
Short answer: you're incorrect.
Long answer: The reason you seem to think that you are correct is also, I believe, incorrect. Godel's proof basically involves forming the statement "this statement is false" in a specialized language that allows you to do so without reference to pronouns--instead, he assigned each symbol a unique integer, and worked out ways of manipulating them both with and without regard to their "meaning". That part would be easy to do with a computer (e.g. asci/text editor/compiler).
Next, he posited a string of symbols where the meaning was related to the process for the manipulation of the meaningless symbols (this is also easy on a computer--sort of like using an editor to edit its own source code).
Using these, he constructed a relatively normal argument about the meaning level that coresponded to an argument at the symbol level--an argument that said "the argument represented by this long string of digits is unprovable"--but the kicker was the long string of digits was the coded representation of the argument itself. If false, the system could obviously not prove it (since we are assuming here that it only proves things that are true). Therefore it must be true, but that means it can't be proven within the system. Tricky, but there was nothing magical about the logic--no quantum mechanical must-derive-this-step-from-the-sprit-world voodoo that would make it impossible for a computer to follow.
--MarkusQ
P.S. A computer might not be able to understand the proof, but that shouldn't be held against it--after all, most of the people who discuss it don't understand it either.
Re:God is a flawed construct. (Score:3, Interesting)
One of God's properties is that He or It or Whatever is omnipotent, no? The _supreme_ being? Why would a supreme being need to obey logic? Your riddle supposes that logic is the supreme entity or force in the universe. I would expect a omnipotent, supreme-being type God to be able to do non-sensical, as well as sensical things.
Re:comparisons (Score:5, Insightful)
1. You can't derive the arithmetic of the natural numbers from it.
2. There is at least one true proposition that isn't a theorem in the system (i.e. it's incomplete, hence the name of Goedel's theorem).
3. The system isn't consistent.
(3) renders a deductive system worthless, and (1) renders it pretty weak, so one can hope at best for (2).
Note that nothing is said about humans versus machines, and there's no reason that humans aren't as subject to it as programs.
Example, which I think I read about in GEB (but customized for the current discussion): "lawpoop cannot consistently assert this proposition." Clearly that is a true statement. (Yes, it's silly, but Goedel's theorem goes through a lot of work to generate an arithmetic encoding of "This statement is not provable in deductive system S," which is much the same sort of statement.) Sorry, but there's nothing magic about humans.
Re:comparisons (Score:2)
Re:comparisons (Score:5, Funny)
And given the people I deal with as customers in tech support, this is not an improvement. Quite the opposite really.
"I don't know what the IP address is Dave and I don't care. I just want you to make me work or I'll e-mail your supervisor with a nasty complaint."
Heh. You're funny (Score:3, Insightful)
No, sorry. The world doesn't revolve around you or your hobbies. There _are_ plenty of jobs for which the computer isn't the important part. It's not what makes them money.
E.g, for a lawyer it's a better investment of their time to study the laws and precendents, than to le
And now for something nasty (Score:4, Insightful)
But what cracks me up is that the most arrogant assholes are the ones with the least skill or achievement. When you see someone harping the most about how he's uber-L33T because he knows what an IP address is, and how everyone else is an idiot... chances are it's someone who actually knows the _least_ about those. Chances are it's not a programmer who actually writes socket code, it's not a hardware engineer who's designed a network card, etc. No siree, it's a script-reader from the hell-desk that does the "I'm so l33t and everyone else is an idiot" fuss.
So you want to call people idiots if they don't know some computer trivia you know (off a list of canned answers)? Well, then being an EE and having some 20+ years of programming experience, I'll call _you_ an idiot, because you're below _my_ skill level.
Sure, you know what an IP or port number is or how to find it out in Windows. (Or can find it out on your list of canned answers.) But can you actually _use_ a socket on that port? Can you for example write a game server that listens on that port? If I gave you an old network card, can you find the right Linux kernel driver and change it to make it work with that card? Or what?
Or, ok, you do know what an IP address is. Congrats. Do you also know what a B-Tree is, how it works, and how to implement one in your code? Do you also know the difference between, say, MergeSort and QuickSort, and the influence of external (e.g., DB file on a disk) vs internal (in RAM) sorting on their performance? Can you implement either purely as, say, a state-machine driven by exceptions to signal state changes, just to prove that you actually understand the algorithm, as opposed to copying someone else's code off the net? Do you know the difference between bitmap indexes and b-tree indexes in Oracle, and can discuss when you might need one instead of the other?
Hey, it's computer stuff too. Very basic stuff too, nothing esoteric. We established already that computer stuff matters, and you're an idiot if there's something you don't know about them.
Re:And now for something nasty (Score:3, Insightful)
It's like any complex problem where it seems easy until you look into it. The more you understand about it, the more you realise how little you understand.
Me? I know that I know nothing at all - so I must be the wisest guy alive *grin*.
Re:comparisons (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they are not (Score:3, Informative)
Seriously, computers can work with things more complex then 'ones and zeros'. They can be programed to deal with shades of grey as easily (well, maybe not 'easily' but it definetly can be done)
The fundemental part of the human brain is the neuron, and it's either firing or not. 1 or 0 just like a computer. What triggers it is a bit more complicated, but the process can be e
Re:comparisons (Score:3, Informative)
Re:comparisons (Score:3, Informative)
HOWEVER, it appears the parent poster is one of the three authors of the paper under discussion, so somebody ought to mod the parent post up as "Informative".
*(Just for a start, the article quotes the researcher as saying,
Re:comparisons (Score:3, Interesting)
Fuzzy Networks (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, there is no instantaneous jump in digital comptuers either, however once theshold voltage is reached in a neuron it fires very quickly and very sharply.
In any event, the voltages inside a neuron are quantized, always an even multiple of the charge on an electron, which obviously can be stored in a computer program, as co
-1, Roland Piquepaille (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:-1, Roland Piquepaille (Score:3, Insightful)
wonder if he's giving kickbacks to samzenpus for posting his stuff.
Re:-1, Roland Piquepaille (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:-1, Roland Piquepaille (Score:2)
something's missing (Score:5, Funny)
How will this study affect your next thought? Go here [primidi.com] to discuss it further.
There, that feels more complete.
Re:something's missing (Score:3, Funny)
S***** Network Administration
site: primidi.com
classification: spam/advertising
access: denied
If you think this is an error please contact ***@**
Re:something's missing (Score:2)
Thanks. I was wondering what the hell was going on (and still am). When I could only find the link directly to the document the blurb was talking about I scanned over the blurb a couple more times looking for the primidi.com link.
I wasn't until later that I actually noticed that Roland's name itself was the only link to primidi.com in the entire blurb. Weird, eh? Maybe he's trying to to get on our good sides.
Even more suprising... (Score:2)
The Network is the Computer (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The Network is the Computer (Score:5, Informative)
So, for example, for a simple if statement waiting on user input, part of the CPU would process the "true" result of the statement and part would process the "false" one. When the user made a decision, one would be used and one would be thrown out. In theory, computing these branches ahead of time was supposed to be faster than doing things linearly.
Again, though, I'm not sure Intel went through with this. They were the subject of the article.
Re:The Network is the Computer (Score:2)
predictive branching (Score:5, Informative)
Granted, if the processor is wrong, it has to clear the pipeline and start anew (which is costly), but the benefits outweigh the negatives.
Re:The Network is the Computer (Score:2)
Actually there are many conductors. What makes cognitive control an especially interesting problem is determining which conductors are in control at any point in time.
This is a fantastically intricate and difficult problem: how to prioritize limited resources to interact with a rapidly changing environment in real time. i.e. What do you ignore at any given point in time?
Our conductors trade off control constantly, over the time course of seconds,
Re:The Network is the Computer (Score:3, Insightful)
IBM (Score:2)
Obvious (Score:2, Funny)
Come on, it's not like this is neuroscience... Oh.
Computers can process "shades of gray" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Computers can process "shades of gray" (Score:3, Funny)
Fascinating (Score:5, Funny)
Next week's research topic: Do farts stink?
Re:Fascinating (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fascinating (Score:5, Informative)
It blocks stories submitted by Roland. Of course, you'd have to have installed greasemonkey. Which I forgot to do on re-install and hence saw this fucking stupid article.
Re:Fascinating (Score:3, Funny)
Hehe. I always thought it was more like this:
"Ooo! There's a Roland article! If I bitch about him, I'll be modded as insightful, just like the 300 other times it happened!"
Missing Comma (Score:5, Funny)
Our Brains Don't Work, Like Computers
So it's not /just/ computers that don't work! (Score:2)
Maybe we should first debug the universal Turing machine.
But how?
So basically what this is saying... (Score:3)
Re:So basically what this is saying... (Score:2)
Could I be programmed not to know the difference?
Yep (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess some brains just have more contrast then others...
Like other animals? (Score:2)
Gee, that's a surprize.
Wow (Score:5, Funny)
1.) The GPS coordinates of each key on my keyboard.
2.) The streaming audio of my name and all of my friends and families name.
3.) The bio-mechanical force sequences for the hundreds of muscles used in picking up a glass every morning.
Beer will no longer render my circuits useless!
Newsflash (Score:5, Informative)
Who woulda thunk it.
ftp://ftp.sas.com/pub/neural/FAQ.html%23A2 [sas.com]
'Most NNs have some sort of "training" rule whereby the weights of connections are adjusted on the basis of data.'
Insert joke about the 1980's (or 60's/50's/40's) calling). Somehow I don't think Norbert Weiner would be the slightest bit surprised.
-Tupshin
We are borg... (Score:2, Funny)
This sounds familiar (Score:2)
Sounds like the elusive "analog computer".
"Shades of grey" sounds like working with analog values (i.e. 0-255) instead of binary levels (on/off) or even trianary values (on/maybe/off).
Re:This sounds familiar (Score:5, Interesting)
Other factors involved? (Score:2)
New Research Shows (Score:2)
Misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
The Slashdot headline says our minds don't work like computers, end of sentence.
Had TFSH (The Fine Slashdot Headline) been accurate, this would've been a mind-blowing result and in need of some extraordinarily strong evidence to support such an extraordinary claim. The question of whether the human mind--sentience, consciousness, and all that goes with it--is a computable process is one of the most wide-open questions in AI research right now. It's so wide-open that nobody wants to approach it directly; it's seen as too difficult a problem.
But no, that's not what these guys discovered at all. They just discovered the brain doesn't discretize data. Significant result. Impressive. I'd like to see significant evidence. But it's very, very wrong to summarize it as "our brains don't work like computers". That's not what they proved at all.
Just once, I'd like to see a Slashdot editor read an article critically, along with the submitter's blurb, before posting it.
Re:Misleading (Score:2)
Re:Misleading (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see how that's at all possible given the underlying physical process. As voltage, or frequency, or whatever is the carrier for the "signal" traverses a synapse, at some level, nature itself quatifies it. There has to be a point where the level of the signal is distinguished as discrete from another level. One electron more or less, one Hz more or less. . . The question is, how consistent is the hardware at distinguishing the signal differences as discrete? I'm guessing that neurons probably aren't as sensitive as a purpose-designed piece of silicon could be. But maybe that inconsistency is a crucial part of the characteristics of data processing of biological nervous systems - those characteristics being what distinguishes them from technological systems. . . ?
Re:Misleading (Score:3, Insightful)
However, their experiment did not look close enough to pick out the jaggies.
Someone can write a computer program that behaves the same way as the experiment subjects. Now what can they conclude?
Looks like another example of Cargo Cult science.
Re:Misleading (Score:3, Informative)
And there is a minimum time between such pulses. For a higher response rate/precision, more cells are used.
A single neuron will take in inputs from up to as many as 10,000 other neurons, with a threshold that has to be exceeded before it will fire itself. And each inputs can have the effect of increasing or
Perfectly true (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, the output cannot be any more stable than the input, so if you have a fluctuating input, you will have a fluctuating output. However, I'll assume that the input is stable to some high level of precision. (This requires a screened input and a screened device, but those are doable.)
So we now focus on the device itself. Resistance
Tomorrow on the "Painfully Obvious" (Score:5, Funny)
Sure hope my taxes don't pay for that "research".
Re:Tomorrow on the "Painfully Obvious" (Score:5, Funny)
The brain is not a computer (Score:5, Interesting)
Does anyone *really* think that computers and the brain work in the same way ? Or even in a significantly similar fashion ?
Well, by 'processors', I assume you mean neurons. These are activated to perform a firing sequence on output connections dependent on their input connections and current state, heavily modified by chemistry, propogation time (it's an electrical flow through ion channels, not a copper wire), and (for lack of a better word) weights on the output connections. To compare the processing capacity of one of these to a CPU is ludicrous. On the other hand, the 'several' in the quote above is also ludicrous... "Several" does not generally correspond to circa 100 billion...
No-one has a clear idea of how the brain really processes and stored information. We have models (neural networks), and they're piss-poor ones at that...
The brain behaves less like a computer and more like a chaotic system of nodes the more you look at it, and yet there is enormous and significant order within the chaos. The book by Kauffman ("The origins of order", I've recommended it before, although it's very mathematical) posits evolution pushing any organism towards the boundary of order and chaos as the best place to be for survival, and the brain itself is the best example of these ideas that I can think of.
Brain : computer is akin to Warp Drive : Internal combustion engine in that they both perform fundamentally the same job, but one is light years ahead of the other.
Simon.
Re:The brain is not a computer (Score:5, Insightful)
The point under discussion in this article is summed in this quote:
"More recently, however, a growing number of studies, such as ours, support dynamical-systems approaches to the mind. In this model, perception and cognition are mathematically described as a continuous trajectory through a high-dimensional mental space; the neural activation patterns flow back and forth to produce nonlinear, self-organized, emergent properties -- like a biological organism."
The goal is to forcefully point out (using an experiment) that the one way we think about mental processing, the digital computational model, is not very useful even at the trivial level of mental signal processing.
It's interesting how all the sarcastic comments about the "biological organism" reference completely miss the point. The point is that the signal is being processed in a way that could be modeled by the way a biological organism moves through space. It sniffs here, then there, then jumps to the solution. The signal processing itself exhibits emergent properties.
The reference to the dynamical system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamical_system [wikipedia.org]) is key. (I think people frequently fail to gloss the additional "al" and think this refers to some sort of generic "dynamic system"). Dynamical systems, although deterministic, are a foundational tool for developing chaos theory.
For me the interesting idea is that the default state of thought is in-betweeness. We stay jittering back and forth in an unresolved state until, suddenly, we aren't.
Re:The brain is not a computer (Score:3, Insightful)
Consider that with all our signal processing techniques, a computer can't easily (despite what "CSI" says
Re:The brain is not a computer (Score:3, Insightful)
A brain, for the same input will have different outputs. Try asking your wife or gf if they are in the "mood". Will you get the same answer all the time? The connections in the brain constantly rewire themselves hence it CANNOT be a function.
Erm... what about rand()? fread()? time()?
When you consider that the question you proposed to your SO is fairly high-leve
The fools (Score:2)
Our brains don't work like computers? <sarcasm>Noooo, you're kidding!</sarcasm>
Indeed (Score:2)
People aren't born with an innate foundation in predicate calculus?
I suppose it can be a useful line of research in robotic "muscle" coordination and world interaction.
Both are computationally complete so WHO CARES? (Score:2, Insightful)
Binary Not The Best (Score:2)
Why was this a suprising result? Prior to this they thought what, that people were human-made binary computers in diguise? We have developed computer systems using binary math not because a binary system of logic is necessarily the best, but because binary components can be made easily and cheaply.
Also, figuring out a system of low-level operations such as NAND and XOR is more difficult for other number systems li
Confusing verbage (Score:2)
They talk in the article of a "1's and 0's" concept of brain function, but they fail (at least through what is in the PR release about their experiment) to disprove that the brain operates on binary data.
Even computer software, which is known to operate on a strict binary system at the lowest layers, can have the appearance of linear, curving outputs as the data fed to it changes. This linearity breaks down at some granularity if you look closely enough at the output and see it jumping from one value to t
We are computers, just not /binary/ computers (Score:5, Interesting)
I believe that the mind is (simply?) a quantum computer, and the article seems to support that idea. The human brain utilizes a sort of general interconnectedness of things to process thoughts as dynamic probabilities of state, with conclusions only being properly arrived at after a certain ammount of calculation has occured, but with all probabilities esiting well before the completion of the thought.
Anyhow, I should probably stop rambling and go outside or something.
Evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
That makes perfect sense, seeing as our brains evolved [talkorigins.org] from other biological organisms.
Check out evolutionary psychology [wikipedia.org] for some information. You'll view the world differently afterwards.
Evolutionary psychology (or EP) proposes that human and primate cognition and behavior could be better understood by examining them in light of human and primate evolutionary history... The idea that organisms are machines that are designed to function in particular environments was argued by William Paley (who, in turn, drew upon the work of many others).
Re:Evolution (Score:3, Interesting)
The logic problem you refer to is modus tollens, "mode that denies" and people do find it extremely difficult.
Here is a rule.. if there is an E on one side of a card, there is a 5 on the back. The fronts of cards have letters and the backs all have numbers. What cards must you turn over (minimum) to prove the rule?
Here are the cards as you see them on the table:
N 5 9 E
Modus tollens is also called proof by contrapositive
Universality of computation (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people ascribe the seeming magic of consciousness to some ineffable property of the brain, e.g., quantum mechanical effect. While other insist that its just what happens when you connect enough simple elements in a self-adaptive network.
The question is, are there neural input-output functions that are fundamentally not computable? If not, then a digital computer will, someday, reach human brain power (assuming Moore's law continues).
also worthy of note (Score:5, Informative)
Figured it was worth mentioning given the subject matter of the thread... I liked it.. good read, if a bit dry at times...
Brain vs. Mind (Score:5, Insightful)
Natural numbers (1,2,3...), true/false, up/down...
It's not unnatural to divide everything in half, heck our bodys are mostly symmetrical; the distiction comes in where the dividing line is.
We can weight our decisions in endless ways, if someone makes a statement, our belief of that statement depends on how many times we have heard it, our trust in the stater, if it meshes with known facts in the current context.
What I wonder is how far can a human mind be pushed in terms of concepts it can grasp and control it has, can a human visualise a 5 dimensional virtual object? control emotional responses, without supressing them? hold multiple contridictary world models? accelerate long-term memory access?
Even if you think of an electronic computer, it's just hordes of electrons rushing down pathways, only reliable because the voltage levels are continually refreshed at each step, a few electrons might wander off the path, but they are replaced at the next junction. Quantum Mob Rule.
How does the mind emerge from the brain? (Score:4, Insightful)
We look around our world and notice that computers are superficially similar to brains (e.g. they can both do math), so we hypothesize that they work similarly.
However, there's very little hard evidence supporting this hypothesis in the first place, so there's no "news" in this story.
Bottom line: The brain is not just a super-powerful computer.
Schema Theory (Score:3, Interesting)
Pretty Please (Score:4, Insightful)
Could we pretty, pretty please have a Roland Piquepaille section, so we can opt-out? I've been good all year, and it's almost my birthday, and I won't ask for anything for Christmas.
-Peter
Let's see the numbers (Score:5, Informative)
Fine, let's see the math. Let's see the trajectory calculations. How about those calculating the space? Calculating the number of dimensions the space has, and how fast that number changes over time?
40 years ago brain scientists realized that computer architecture made a good metaphor for how the brain works. (They did NOT assume there was no feedback, contrary to the article). It made a handy and productive way to look at things so they could figure out more about what was really going on.
10 years ago brain scientists realized that they could use the way cool chaos stuff the describe the way the brain works. Believe me, I know; I've been to the Santa Fe Institute twice. It worked particularly well for me because I'm essentially a signal analyst -- I HAVE to define a set of variables, estimate how well they work, and decide how many of my arbitrary variables to keep or throw out.
It's still only a metaphor. And unlike the specific specific processes described by cognitive science, the dynamic system stuff remains nebulous. It claims a mathematical legitimacy which it can really claim only in concept because the actual math of the acutal operations are is beyond the abilities of anyone making the claims. The fact that it *can* be described this way is no less trivial than the fact that processes can ge grouped according to the traditional cognitive science concepts.
Trajectories on phase space are soooooooo sexy. But if it's any good, it'll result in something more concrete than more people picking up this flag and waving it while shouting the new slogans and buzzwords. Until that happens I peg this with the study that "calculated" the "fractal dimension" of the cortex just because it has fold and folds in the folds.... so fsking what.
D'oh! It's Roland the Plogger, bogus as usual (Score:5, Interesting)
The path planner goes slower and generates paths that are initially ambiguous when faced with multiple alternatives. That's no surprise. I'm working on the steering control program for our DARPA Grand Challenge vehicle, and it does that, too. Doesn't mean it's not "digital".
So essentially... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hm, duh?
In all seriousness though, I wonder how the curvature of the mouse shows gravitation to one side versus the other, maybe they're just a quake2 player and enjoy cirlce-strafing.
understanding the brain (Score:3, Insightful)
same old story (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:really?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:really?!? (Score:2, Insightful)
Ya, people have known this for quite some time. (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope no one was using this research to acquire a PHD or MS. The "brains are not computers" epiphany has been realized about billion times already. And this research could stand to be much deeper.
I'm a little bummed about the shallow linguistics analysis. It's interesting and all, but I wish they would have really jumped into something such as pattern recognition.
I'm and interactive designer, and I tend to believe that language and interaction is ba
Re:really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, that was sarcasam!
I hope not... (Score:4, Funny)
Are younger people that dumb nowadays?
I hope not, because if they are, I must finally be old.
Re: No, I didn't think that (Score:3, Funny)
> I thought that part of the difficulty in reproducing a mechanical brain was preciously it's shades of grey.
It's even made of grey matter.
Re:huh? (Score:4, Informative)
Yes it can, many have several ALUs and FPUs, and also more than one stage in their pipelines. The above hasn't been true since sometime in the nineties at the latest.
Re:huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Your brain is composed of billions of individual processing units. Each of those processing units may be sort of like a stream processor (like in Cell), in that they take inputs, perform a computation, and then fire out an output (although I don't know if anyone's even determined that conclusively). However, your brain is composed of billions of those linked together in very complex ways.
Suggesting that your bra
Re:huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Thus you cannot say human brain does parallelistic operations at the same time"
Unless of course you want to be factually accurate.
Re:umm (Score:2)
Re:Error! (Score:4, Funny)