/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10965149]

What programming language does the human brain run on ?

[Anonymous No.10965152]

IQ++

[Anonymous No.10965153]

>>10965149
Metalanguage
T. Gnome chomsky

[Anonymous No.10965157]

>>10965149
expression 2 from gmod

[Anonymous No.10965161]

Python

[Anonymous No.10965164]

>>10965149
A complex neural network of various types of cells

[Anonymous No.10965171]

>>10965164
Is it more or less efficient than c++ ?

[Anonymous No.10965186]

>>10965149
English.

[Anonymous No.10965193]

>>10965149
the electrical potential of neurons in analog form. the chemical end is mostly to unlock pathways but it would be to slow if it relied on constant releasing of chemicals to process data . also you have the problem of the chemical soup your brain wrest in 1 having finite space to take up and 2 it would constantly have to be adjusted to null the previous computation oftherwise. some people say its a chemical computer and ignore the electrical end which is inaccurate. that said the brain does complex things with proteins and some new data indicates light was found being emitted by brain cells in microscopic tubes within the inner workings of the brain. however it would still be floats not digital signals

[Anonymous No.10965287]

>>10965171
It's about as inefficient as is possible. You can't really count it as a language either because there aren't even consistent results for basic operations.

[Anonymous No.10965303]

>>10965149
recursive formulas that react to things based on input. in less than 100 years we will likely prove free will doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.10965309]

>>10965303
Will we stop having prisons and courts ?

[Anonymous No.10965313]

>>10965149
Psychology+Logic

[Anonymous No.10965322]

>>10965309
No. We will just know (((who))) to eliminate before there's any further problems

[Anonymous No.10965351]

>>10965149
it runs BIOs

[Anonymous No.10965366]

>>10965322
Last guy with this idea ended up shooting himself. Just a friendly reminder, goyim.

[Anonymous No.10965389]

>>10965149
This thread just shows how dumb sci really is
>runs on a language
Computers don't run on language. Why do you think code is compiled into machine code that gets run by the CPU? The only thing differing computers from calculators are conditional jumps, the computer doesn't understand human readable code by itself.

Or is this shitposting just super funny to you and I'm not getting the "joke"?

[Anonymous No.10965438]

>>10965149
none. This thread is retarded and you should feel retarded.

[Anonymous No.10966058]

>>10965389
Don't be this much of an autist, anon. Not OP but I've worked as a software developer for the past 10 years and I understood him just fine. He's obviously talking about the operating system. And everything ends up as machine code but that doesn't mean it's wrong to talk about Windows being written in C++ even though you could nitpick it to death and start a needlessly painful discussion about assembly and the non-popcorn variety of kernels.

[Anonymous No.10966176]

>>10965186
>running DroneOS
>not being root and using native code

[Anonymous No.10966315]

>>10965149
Biological brains are not Turing machines therefore they don't """run code""" or have an """instruction set""". But you know that, because you're a shitposter.
Now that you've gotten your (You), run along back to >>>/b/ your tranny porn is waiting for you to fap to it.

[Anonymous No.10966886]

Bump

[Anonymous No.10966987]

>>10966315
>Biological brains are not Turing machines
The conventional view is that biological brains *are* computable. Your view they aren't is the Penrose fringe minority. Don't act like it's well accepted.

[Anonymous No.10967599]

Memes

[Anonymous No.10967617]

Pascal

[Anonymous No.10967733]

>>10966987
computers don't intentionally lie. taking out the lie factor intentionally creates something that isn't human or relatable. making a computer that intentionally switches calculations to produce arbitrary answers, giving it the ability to lie, is just making a hunk of stupid shit.

if you want to make a human then stick your wiener in some thot's vagina.

[Anonymous No.10967771]

>>10965149
von Neumann suggested it was a heavily statistical language. Whatever language the brain uses has to be very predictory.

[Anonymous No.10968005]

>>10967733
None of that is relevant to the claim about human brains not being computable.
There is NO legitimate evidence the human brain is something beyond a Turing machine or that it requires some nonsense quantum magic to reproduce it. The Penrose Orch-Or theory is bullshit.

[Anonymous No.10968025]

>>10965149
runs on Java.

[S. Vagus No.10968087]

Aren't you all just arguing over what experience gets to be the dominant description level event?

>Sharing

[Anonymous No.10968127]

>>10965149
C#

[Anonymous No.10968191]

HTML

[Anonymous No.10968532]

>>10965322
Oi wot if Psycho Pass woz real that'd be mad innit?

[Anonymous No.10968542]

>>10965149
None. You have to make your own for that to mean anything. Unless you're programming an AI of yourself in your own mind, it's still none.

[Anonymous No.10968559]

>>10965149
Your brain runs on:

An endless desire to procreate, status hunger, useless generic emotions and what little skills you have to satisfy the latter.

Your body will decay until it fails, taking your unfulfilled consciousness with it, gaining nothing losing it all.

Regarding NPCs, they probably run brainfuck on top of windows 8.1

[Anonymous No.10968757]

>>10965287
>inefficient
>most impressive self sustaining information processing unit ever discovered
pick one

also brain is a neural network is as valid as calling the planet earth a steam engine

“object in nature is same thing as complicated abstraction human can conceive” tsk tsk

[Anonymous No.10968760]

>>10967599
unironically best answer itt

[Anonymous No.10968786]

Computers don't "run on a programing language." They run on machine code.

The programming language is just a tool to help us talk with computers. Humans could never understand machine code and computers could never understand English, so we needed to invent a language that both of us can understand in order to communicate. The programing language is just an intermediary language, and as an intermediary language it can be literally anything so long as both parties (human and computer) are both capable of understanding it and so long as the language can convey ideas or thoughts. In the case of computers, those thoughts/ideas are instructions.

[Anonymous No.10968826]

>>10965149
N=2^i–1
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnsys.2016.00095/full

Our brains have a basic algorithm that enables our intelligence
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161121165921.htm

[Anonymous No.10968837]

>>10966176
Shut the fuck up, nerd.

[Anonymous No.10968918]

>>10965149
npC++
>tfw 40 replies and no one posted it

[Anonymous No.10968930]

The brain, like all matter in the universe and the universe itself, was written in COBOL

[Anonymous No.10969849]

>>10968757
>also brain is a neural network is as valid as calling the planet earth a steam engine
What the fuck are you talking about? The post you replied to never called brains artificial neural networks.

[Anonymous No.10969869]

>>10969849
I think their point was more that the Earth is actually a steam engine, ie., why we have clouds.

[Anonymous No.10969875]

>>10965149
Software doesn't on programming language.

[Anonymous No.10969880]

>>10965149
Repeat after me:
THE BRAIN IS NOT A FUCKING COMPUTER

[Anonymous No.10969886]

>>10968930
>NOT GREATER THAN
Looks like SQL.

[Anonymous No.10969891]

>>10969880
Forgot to say:
It does NOT compute, it does NOT store memories, it does not retreive information from repositories.

[Anonymous No.10969892]

>>10968757
>inefficient
>most impressive self sustaining information processing unit ever discovered
>pick one
"Impressive" doesn't have an actual well defined meaning for what you're trying to argue. And yes, biological brains are massively inefficient. Nobody seriously believes you would need to reproduce every particle of a brain exactly to accomplish the same cognitive tasks artificially. It wasn't designed in advance to be efficient, or to be anything at all. If it weren't inefficient, redundantly laid out, and lacking design you wouldn't see people with severe brain damage picking up lost cognitive tasks with entirely new undamaged areas of their brains. You can call that a good thing but lots of redundancy to the extent where some can even lose an entire 50% or more of their brains and still live and function is absolutely not an efficient design.

[Anonymous No.10969905]

>>10969880
People nowadays take this "computer analogy bad" reactive dogma way too far in the opposite direction from the original problem of people inferring more computer-like features than what was warranted.
There's a happy medium of not being a pop sci clickbait writer talking about computer analogy too literally and also not being a Searle autist who denies any sort of computable equivalent for cognitive tasks is possible.

[Anonymous No.10969951]

>>10969892
> some can even lose an entire 50% or more of their brains and still live and function is absolutely not an efficient design.
>people with severe brain damage picking up lost cognitive tasks with entirely new undamaged areas of their brains
Only at a very young age and they always lose something in return

[Anonymous No.10969973]

>>10969951
I said they've lived and have been able to function, not that they were left as 200 IQ Olympic athletes.
>Only at a very young age
Don't be a lying faggot.
https://thejns.org/view/journals/j-neurosurg/128/3/article-p853.xml
>A total of 90 cases of adult hemispherectomy were identified, including 6 newly added by Barrow Neurological Institute. Sixty-five patients underwent functional hemispherectomy; 25 patients had anatomical hemispherectomy. Length of follow-up ranged from 9 to 456 months. Seizure freedom was achieved in 80% of patients. The overall morbidity rate was low, with 9 patients (10%) having new or additional postoperative speech or language dysfunction, and 19 patients (21%) reporting some worsening of hemiparesis. No patients lost ambulatory or significant functional ability, and 2 patients had objective ambulatory improvement. Among the 41 patients who underwent additional formal neuropsychological testing postoperatively, overall stability or improvement was seen.

[Anonymous No.10969994]

>>10965149
DNA

[Anonymous No.10970023]

>>10969973
> not that they were left as 200 IQ Olympic athletes.
You're kinda implying it s
look up"the lobotomist" if you want to know what taking away parts of the brain does to people

[Anonymous No.10970057]

Computers are like a brain, but the brain is nothing like a computer.

Is this a fair statement, or is it double think gibberish?