Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
all it takes is one.
Social Media is not Real Life
- Thread starter schuylaar
- Start date
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
there has been more than one work of fiction whose premise is that the world ended — and nobody noticed.
buckaclark
Well-Known Member
Imo,brains use combinatorial logic.They also do not have devine right to creativity. Chess computers use precedental analysis and do very well.
buckaclark
Well-Known Member
I've always said if we were taken over by ET or AI ,we would mercifully never notice (noticed?)
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I don’t know how you can assert that.
TY, HGCC. He posted it Dec or Jan. It was some kind of art. I think he'd said it was chatgpt. He explained it
and the AI thing fairly well. I tried to search for it in his posts, but no luck. If indeed, it was he.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
It's not a matter of opinion, it's fact. There is more than one brain in our head and they work together to come up with thoughts that a computer can't. Interestingly, you are using a metaphor to describe how the brain works by drawing upon the way a computer works. It's not true but this points to something computers don't do. They don't use metaphors.
Your brain does not process information and it is not a computer | Aeon Essays
Your brain does not process information, retrieve knowledge or store memories. In short: your brain is not a computer
aeon.co
Robert Epstein
is a senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology in California. He is the author of 15 books, and the former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today.
No matter how hard they try, brain scientists and cognitive psychologists will never find a copy of Beethoven’s 5th Symphony in the brain – or copies of words, pictures, grammatical rules or any other kinds of environmental stimuli. The human brain isn’t really empty, of course. But it does not contain most of the things people think it does – not even simple things such as ‘memories’.
Our shoddy thinking about the brain has deep historical roots, but the invention of computers in the 1940s got us especially confused. For more than half a century now, psychologists, linguists, neuroscientists and other experts on human behaviour have been asserting that the human brain works like a computer.
To see how vacuous this idea is, consider the brains of babies. Thanks to evolution, human neonates, like the newborns of all other mammalian species, enter the world prepared to interact with it effectively. A baby’s vision is blurry, but it pays special attention to faces, and is quickly able to identify its mother’s. It prefers the sound of voices to non-speech sounds, and can distinguish one basic speech sound from another. We are, without doubt, built to make social connections.
A healthy newborn is also equipped with more than a dozen reflexes – ready-made reactions to certain stimuli that are important for its survival. It turns its head in the direction of something that brushes its cheek and then sucks whatever enters its mouth. It holds its breath when submerged in water. It grasps things placed in its hands so strongly it can nearly support its own weight. Perhaps most important, newborns come equipped with powerful learning mechanisms that allow them to change rapidly so they can interact increasingly effectively with their world, even if that world is unlike the one their distant ancestors faced.
Senses, reflexes and learning mechanisms – this is what we start with, and it is quite a lot, when you think about it. If we lacked any of these capabilities at birth, we would probably have trouble surviving.
But here is what we are not born with: information, data, rules, software, knowledge, lexicons, representations, algorithms, programs, models, memories, images, processors, subroutines, encoders, decoders, symbols, or buffers – design elements that allow digital computers to behave somewhat intelligently. Not only are we not born with such things, we also don’t develop them – ever.
We don’t store words or the rules that tell us how to manipulate them. We don’t create representations of visual stimuli, store them in a short-term memory buffer, and then transfer the representation into a long-term memory device. We don’t retrieve information or images or words from memory registers. Computers do all of these things, but organisms do not.
Computers, quite literally, process information – numbers, letters, words, formulas, images. The information first has to be encoded into a format computers can use, which means patterns of ones and zeroes (‘bits’) organised into small chunks (‘bytes’). On my computer, each byte contains 8 bits, and a certain pattern of those bits stands for the letter d, another for the letter o, and another for the letter g. Side by side, those three bytes form the word dog. One single image – say, the photograph of my cat Henry on my desktop – is represented by a very specific pattern of a million of these bytes (‘one megabyte’), surrounded by some special characters that tell the computer to expect an image, not a word.
Humans, on the other hand, do not – never did, never will. Given this reality, why do so many scientists talk about our mental life as if we were computers?
Last edited:
All i could google for that term was in the study of transactional analysis, psychology.
What ChatGPT is based on are, among others, these:
But if anybody asks, I dunno wtf i'm talkin' about.
It's not that our brains are computers, that i'm arguing. And it's not that computers
are like our brains either. It's that given enough speed, Tbytes/sec, Tera flops, big data
and big data management that the computers, (collaboratively linked, just like you said
human brains do) on the WWW can emulate what
i think would amount to some world sized, or super brain, in emulation only. Emulation
so precise that these AI models could have "feelings" be "sensitive" even have compassion,
or hatred. They certainly have all the data, and finally all of the processing speed, and they're
linked on the WWW. Smart phones, connectivity, it's all working together to implement,
facilitate AI in this example we have of ChatGPT. Just because a thing knows what is said
to be compassionate, does not mean that thing feels compassion.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I don't doubt that some day there will be super capable artificial intelligence. I simply doubt that we can build a machine that surpasses what the human brain can do. We can't even say how the human brain holds a memory, much less build something to emulate what a human brain does..
Feelings, compassion, hatred and such are still beyond our understanding too.
But speaking of building an electronic brain, one attempt was made about a decade ago:
Why the Human Brain Project Went Wrong—and How to Fix It
Two years in, a $1-billion-plus effort to simulate the human brain is in disarray. Was it poor management, or is something fundamentally wrong with Big Science?
Why the Human Brain Project Went Wrong--and How to Fix It
Two years in, a $1-billion-plus effort to simulate the human brain is in disarray. Was it poor management, or is something fundamentally wrong with Big Science?
In a 2009 TED talk, he first presented to the general public his vision of mathematically simulating the brain's 86 billion neurons and 100 trillion synapses on a supercomputer. “We can do it within 10 years,” he promised the audience, suggesting that such a mathematical model might even be capable of consciousness. After those 10 years, Markram told the audience, “we will send … a hologram to talk to you.”
It was sold, funded and failed in two years because it was badly run. But fundamentally, the person who envisioned and eventually ran the project of the rails failed because he did not know what he did not know and what he did not know was our brains are not 86 billion neurons and 100 trillion synapses. Our brains are much more than that.
Jason Allen's AI-generated work, Théâtre D'opéra Spatial, took first place in the digital category at the Colorado State Fair. Pic: NYTIMES
I think you are too focused on making a computer into a brain, or
defining our brains as being computers. I think it's computing tech
advancement, miniaturization, nano tech, computing speed, connectivity,
big data and big data management, among others that will allow for
computers to emulate human brains. They'll not become human brains, nor even
work in the same way, but will bring about the same result, magnitudes
of times faster than what we can do with our finite brain. You talk of
trillions of human brain synapses, etc., the brain is actually slower and
possessing lower numbers than AI now has at it's disposal. And if it's not
ready now, just give it another Moore's law cycle and see if it won't be next year...
_edit_
It was like the John Henry, Steel driving Man, allegory. John was some kind
of steel driving man, and everybody wanted him to rule the day, but he
couldn't survive battle against the machine. Same damn thing with AI. Our
combined human brain power can't touch AI, even now, let alone tomorrow.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
We don't do what computers do and computers don't do what we do. Computers are great tools, though. So, to say the human brain is slower at doing what a computer is good at makes no sense. Computers cannot and will never invent new things like people do. I think people are anthropomorphizing computers because that's the way we think. The human brain is a lot more interesting and complex than you portray in your post.
The universe is a lot more interesting too. We just see 3D and the universe is 4D. There are at least 6 alternate universes adjacent to ours. Our brain is not isolated from the universe or universes. Our knowledge about them is growing too. Our brains are not isolated from these phenomena, our brains are organs in our bodies that is fully integrated into 4D space that we can hardly comprehend at this time.
So, don't undersell what we are. We don't even know what we are yet. There are well documented out of body experiences that can't be explained but are hard to discount too. Like the blind person in a near death experience after a car accident who described seeing doctors working on her from her view on the ceiling. She never had seen light before, yet could describe seeing as if she had. We don't know what dreams are or where they come from. I'm not getting mystical, just saying we really don't understand the universe around us, so how can we build a computer that does?
Last edited:
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
isn’t that a bit like saying you have to
be a top-flight chef to be a restaurant critic? I think the second clause is not conditioned by the first.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I don't think what I'm saying is like that. Though I will point out that your use of analogy and my ability to readily understand it is what computers, megaflops and all aren't good at. A top flight chef has to understand how the ingredients and techniques produce the flavors of the food he's serving and the effects those flavors will have on his diners before he can be a top flight chef. I'm saying that a human can't design a machine that has capabilities beyond his understanding and the human mind is not understood at this time. Computers are nothing like the human mind.
Last edited:
CANON_Grow
Well-Known Member
This is oddly specific and I feel the need to ask, respectfully - was this revealed with the use of dimethyltryptamine?
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
No, I've never done anything other than weed and psilocybin mushrooms and those only twice.
Some of that paragraph came from my amazement some time ago, when I realized that I could not perceive 4-space yet my brain and body are in it. Some of it came from this essay that this discussion brought me to:
Your Brain Is Not a Computer. It Is a Transducer
A new theory of how the brain works — neural transduction theory — might upend everything we know about consciousness and the universe itself.
www.discovermagazine.com
CANON_Grow
Well-Known Member
Big brain stuff, trying to understand Quantum and String theory is certainly above my level after devoting some time to it previously. The reason I asked about dimethyltryptamine is clinical studies are being done with it, and trying to keep an open mind about the infinite number of parallel universes, is it possible that substances such as dimethyltryptamine allow the brain to access/receive information that is not typically possible? Similar to the car accident victim being able to "see", obviously she got that information from somewhere. Was her brain able to receive information via a different frequency, not necessarily a parallel universe, but experiencing this universe differently than we understand?No, I've never done anything other than weed and psilocybin mushrooms and those only twice.
Some of that paragraph came from my amazement some time ago, when I realized that I could not perceive 4-space yet my brain and body are in it. Some of it came from this essay that this discussion brought me to:
Your Brain Is Not a Computer. It Is a Transducer
A new theory of how the brain works — neural transduction theory — might upend everything we know about consciousness and the universe itself.
On one hand I think it's all an inside practical joke by the big brains, but it's fascinating to think about. Up until they start talking about the actual possibility that this is all just a simulation, then I get freaked out and have to shut it down.