/sci/ - Science & Math

No, that phrase is one of the biggest piles of bullshit ever. There is nothing in common at all, physically or operationally.

>>1971836
>ORLY.jpg

Computers: RAM, video memory, hard drive
Humans: Working/short term memory, audio-visual sketchpad, long term memory

Computers: Parts of program linked together by pointers, indirection, hooks, etc.
Humans: Memories linked together by "hooks"

Computer: Different types of input, such as keyboard, mouse, camera...
Humans: Different types of input, such as touch, sight...

Computers: On low level, function through electrical signals.
Humans: On low level, function through electrical signals.

I could go on and on (I'm a software engineer), but you get the point.

>>1971836
>trollface.jpg

>>1971812
Sort of, it depends on how loose of a similarity qualifies as "like."

>>1971860
Are you saying he was trolling, or he was trolled?

>>1971865
that he was trolling

or an idiot

sure, but our file system is ass.

>>1971864
If you think about it, it's kind of neat that brains and computers were created by entirely different processes, but because they share some of the same basic purposes, they share a lot of different qualities. I noticed the similarities all through my computer architecture and operating systems classes; there were countless times where a new concept was introduced, and I thought "that's just like how my brain works..."

I don't know but if it where true, would that mean that free will and emotion is an illusion or that computers possess them but can't communicate it to us?

>>1971888
we are complex enough for the processes that we evolved in our brains gave us the ability to think outside our main needs

and computers aren't fucking sentient you half-wit

>>1971888
To answer that question, we could either get into a long discussion about determinism like we did last night, or we could just say "We have free will, relative to our own consciousnesses." And "computers can't have free will, because they aren't sentient."

with a computer, theres a path to the information, and any portion of this path is some part of the data being considered or modified. it's a sequence of flops.

the human brain does not work like such. any "thought" cannot be broken down into a fraction of that thought. for a thought or an idea to be realized, some number of paths need to be stimulated in a semi-instantaneous fashion.

think of it this way. at any point in a semiconductor based system of logic, you can imagine that there is a discrete area where things happen: where numbers are added, where data is stored, there there is output. try to figure out where this discrete process occurs in the brain

>>1971917
You kind of have that backwards. At a low level, there's no such thing as a path in a computer. It's just a big old series of millions of 0's and 1's. Of course, these get INTERPRETED to get meaning, such as where things are stored, what they mean, what to do with them, etc...

The human brain "stores" information through neural pathways, of course. Brains store information through a giant dynamic tree of neurons, while a computer has a fixed array of information (which is a heck of a lot easier to model and manipulate).

But, getting to my point: you COULD break a thought down, just as you could break an instruction down. You could look at individual bits of an instruction, or individual neurons of a thought. Of course, neither of those values make any sense, individually.

Roger Penrose was here

The brain has massive parallel processing, and is really only good for detecting patterns. Computers can only execute functions one step at a time, but they do this much, much, much faster than a human brain.

So if you need to perform a million steps on a million pieces of data, use a computer. If you want to recognize a face or learn a language, use a brain.

Maybe in the future we'll design computers that emulate brains at the hardware level. Right now, a classical computer can emulate a brain's neural network at the software level, but can't perform nearly efficient enough to mimic a human brain. Unfortunately there's no market out there for the hardware level, especially since the standard one-step computers are the only ones that are developed.

A parallel-processing supercomputer was made in the 70's (developed partly by Richard Feynman), look up thinking machines corporation

Also look up the Blue Brain project to see where the brain software is at.

This stuff is really interesting, could go on much longer.

The human brain IS a computer. What else would it be?

>>1972031
> mfw the whole universe is a giant computer

>>1972037
Reading Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, again? ;p