Originally posted by Oliver North
because that statement is incorrect. They perform different functions because of different inputs and outputs, they function in the same way. The differences between limbic and cortex neurons wouldn't be meaningful at all.
d'oh, here Astner, I'll give you some low hanging fruit:
while my broad point here, that the differences between the limbic system and cortex come from the arrangement of inputs/outputs and such, is still true, the last sentence about there being no meaningful differences between the neurons oversells the point.
for instance, the hippocampus, sort of part of the limbic system (depends on who you ask mostly) has neurons specialized for more complex grouping and neurogenesis. they function in the exact same manner as other neurons (neurotransmitters, axons, action potentials, etc) but in the end, it isn't fair to say there are no meaningful differences.
now, Astner, in terms of the level you were talking about (structures rather than neurons) this is irrelevant, and I appologize for making you read something not directly related to the OP, but I figured I'd clarify, because this is something I know you were going to pick up on and nail me for, right?
just needed to fix this to settle my own anxious neuroses.
Originally posted by Mindship
At least we don't have to worry about microtubules. 😎
amen to that
though, cytoarchitechtonic differences between neurons would be even less relevant to Astner's point than would the neuronal specialization I mentioned above, but ya, if we are talking about differences in dendridic spines or neurotransmitter receptors, I don't think any two neurons would be the same.
Originally posted by Mindship
Btw, Colonel, I saw you on the tele the other day. You don't be lookin' like your avatar anymore.
haha, ya, thats his mug shot 🙂
also, doesn't it sort of irk you that this confessed war criminal now gets a cushy job as a media pundit. Fox used to have a program called "war stories with oliver north"... Like, Orwell couldn't write it that well.
Originally posted by movie1
I've heard that computers will have the capacity of a human brain by 2020. not sure if this means we'll be close to having a conscious computer.
Not even close, maybe by 2065 or 2070.
Digital size of a personResearch from several groups show that a digital file of a person’s mannerisms, personality, recollections, feelings, beliefs, attitudes and values can be represented by less than one terabyte (1TB) of structured information [2] [3] [4] [5]. This is because a limited number, n, of human universals, m, yield millions of unique human combinations via (n!)/(m!*(n-m)!).
Add to this a few gigabytes of unique memories and you can account for the billions of diverse human mindsets, notwithstanding a very modest toolkit of building block characteristics.
For example, a megabyte of information about one’s daily experiences amounts to under 20 GB of information in 50 years. That daily megabyte is adequate to handle all of one’s tweets, texts and emails plus some compressed photos, audio and video. Combined with structured answers to personality inventories [5] and socio-cultural contextual information, a TB is ample space to provide a comprehensive digital reflection of your consciousness, known as a “mindfile.” The vast majority of information we store is redundant.
Websites exist that collect video streaming of an individual’s daily interactions. While such video streams can rapidly exceed many terabytes in volume, they far exceed the amount of information needed to accurately reflect a person’s mannerisms, personality, recollections, feelings, beliefs, attitudes and values. Advanced versions of pattern recognition software will be able to abstract from such continuous digital records such information as uniquely contributes to a mindfile. These pattern recognition based-abstracts are unlikely to require more than a TB of storage, especially when intelligently structured.
Digital size of all human mindfiles — the “Human Sapienome”
Digital memory of approximately 1022 bytes, the size of all human mindfiles in aggregate, what should be called the human “sapienome,” will be available within 20 years at less than 1% of the likely weight and cost of the 100 YSS. Ten billion people, times one trillion bytes, yields 1022 bytes.
Very very possible, it's the key to immortality.
that isn't even a relevant question
there are tasks a computer is already trillions of times better at than is the human brain, and, unless we radically redesign the way computers work (which would likely reduce their functionality as a tool) there are things the human brain is and will be better at.
The "computer analogy" for describing the brain only has relevance at the most surface and peripheral levels. In terms of how the brain works at a mechanistic level, it is nothing like a computer.
BTW - the author of that article is a lawyer with no relevant training in anything to do with the brain, or technology it seems, and nearly identical things can be said of Kurzweil. Amazing how untrained amateurs come to radically different conclusions than do trained professionals.
Originally posted by Oliver North
that isn't even a relevant questionthere are tasks a computer is already trillions of times better at than is the human brain, and, unless we radically redesign the way computers work (which would likely reduce their functionality as a tool) there are things the human brain is and will be better at.
The "computer analogy" for describing the brain only has relevance at the most surface and peripheral levels. In terms of how the brain works at a mechanistic level, it is nothing like a computer.
BTW - the author of that article is a lawyer with no relevant training in anything to do with the brain, or technology it seems, and nearly identical things can be said of Kurzweil. Amazing how untrained amateurs come to radically different conclusions than do trained professionals.
You know nothing about Ray Kurzweil then.
Anyway, despite Ray Kurzweil's superior knowledge on the subject matter to any other human alive today...computers being smarter than people combined with nanoscale electronics provided by future molecular assembly, will allow human beings to replace every organ and every organic part of our bodies with microscopic computer chips to perform superior functions to their organic counterparts: ergo, a human will be a self-aware computer unless suddenly there's a nuclear holocaust in the near-future.
Originally posted by Dolos
You know nothing about Ray Kurzweil then.Anyway, despite Ray Kurzweil's superior knowledge on the subject matter to any other human alive today...computers being smarter than people combined with nanoscale electronics provided by future molecular assembly, will allow human beings to replace every organ and every organic part of our bodies with microscopic computer chips to perform superior functions to their organic counterparts: ergo, a human will be a self-aware computer unless suddenly there's a nuclear holocaust in the near-future.
But... why would we want to do that when we could pack nearly infinite data into DNA and improve the performance of the human body directly instead of replacing parts?
Originally posted by Oliver North
that isn't even a relevant questionthere are tasks a computer is already trillions of times better at than is the human brain, and, unless we radically redesign the way computers work (which would likely reduce their functionality as a tool) there are things the human brain is and will be better at.
I disagree that redesigning computers to work more like our brains would reduce their functionality as tools. At a minimum a human-like computer would be able to very rapidly interface with a traditional computer to perform calculations and access an arbitrarily large amount of specific information. The combination would be a vastly better tool than a normal computer.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I disagree that redesigning computers to work more like our brains would reduce their functionality as tools. At a minimum a human-like computer would be able to very rapidly interface with a traditional computer to perform calculations and access an arbitrarily large amount of specific information. The combination would be a vastly better tool than a normal computer.
I was thinking more in terms of memory storage and retrieval. Certainly, a computer would be better at certain things if it associated and stored things the way our long-term memory does, but we rely on quick and accurate retrieval of data from a computer that is very much unlike human memory (ie: it would be unhelpful if the computer's mood at the time of retrieval changed the nature of the items stored in its memory), whereas our survival requires us to use immediate context to shape how we use stored information.
I hadn't specifically thought of interfacing directly between two types of systems, I'm not sure I see the immediate advantage, unless you are saying that the advantages of both are just amalgamated into one system?
I suppose a computer that could infer our context and needs and reproduce saved data in terms of that would be helpful, but that is almost like psychic technology.
Originally posted by Astner
Encyclopedia Britannica? Don't tell me you were taught to use Google to look for scientific articles.
hi Astner
you are a ****wad
good to hear from you again
Originally posted by Oliver North
I hadn't specifically thought of interfacing directly between two types of systems, I'm not sure I see the immediate advantage, unless you are saying that the advantages of both are just amalgamated into one system?I suppose a computer that could infer our context and needs and reproduce saved data in terms of that would be helpful, but that is almost like psychic technology.
That's basically what I'm referring to. I wouldn't call it psychic though since it would be like a human making inferences, conceivably more accurate, and massively faster than any person could be. Presumably if we knew enough about the mind/brain to program it in a computer with perfect accuracy we would also know enough model a slightly different version.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's basically what I'm referring to. I wouldn't call it psychic though since it would be like a human making inferences, conceivably more accurate, and massively faster than any person could be. Presumably if we knew enough about the mind/brain to program it in a computer with perfect accuracy we would also know enough model a slightly different version.
fair enough
there would still be issues relying on aspects of how humans interpret context, but I get what you are saying. It would vastly improve computers because not only would they be able to retrieve what we want, but also how we want it based on what we are thinking about.
Although, because each person's memory storage would be unique, this would require each person to have a specific computer for their own use, or some type of universal adapter...
interesting concept though
Originally posted by Cyner
But... why would we want to do that when we could pack nearly infinite data into DNA and improve the performance of the human body directly instead of replacing parts?
Because, unlike cells, microscopic machines do not need dna, and are not composed of dna. They are composed of nanoscale silicon parts, which, unlike dna, can have any form and function perform superior functions. Otherwise you're talking genetic engineering, unlike technology, biology has limits. Whereas with miniaturizing AI has exponential capabilities, take the theorized quantum computer for instance. You think microscopic computers being smarter than Einstein because of increased information in decreasing space is far out, quantum computers are way beyond that. Even extremely evolved humans, even self-improved, would be very limited by comparison because organic matter is very primitive compared to pure information on smaller and smaller, and eventually quantum scales.
but we're not machines although everything about our inner workings is bound by physical law. when people think about computers gaining conscience or auto-conscience they are usually talking about silicon chips somehow emulating what the cellular network know as brain can do without an actual mollecular replica of it.
this argument is built upon the assumption that the epiphenomenon of conscience can be replicated independetly of the specific underlying physical processes that actually generate it. therefore electronic circuitry of a completely different material nature and organizational dynamic could generate the same epiphenomenon and software could be a mind.
I am yet to see anything even remotely approaching reasonable evidence for this belief, the so called multi-realizability, which IMO is nothing but sci-fi fantasy
computers as understood by us will never gain sentience (that's conscient sensations like pain, images and smells, not sci-fi personhood btw) or metacognition.