[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 435 KB, 684x1393, supercomputer-future-trends.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4725780 No.4725780 [Reply] [Original]

Do you think it's possible to fully simulate the human brain during your lifetime?

>> No.4725791

bump

>> No.4725797

bamp

>> No.4725807

Yes

>> No.4725812

We don't even understand what qualia are, how could we even begin to create something that resembles the human brain?

>> No.4725819

yes

>> No.4725825
File: 192 KB, 800x600, 1326520471316.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4725825

>computers are brains
>brains are computers

why do people always want to make this comparison

>> No.4725837

>>4725825
Because it's a sensible comparison?
They take input and encode them into electrical signals. They perform low level operations on the signals that correlate with higher level interpretations. They consist of functional modules that interoperate. They function as controllers over devices that take electrical signals as input. Want me to continue?

>> No.4725849

I have already done it. The problem with that IBM/govt project is that they are trying to simulate the hardware of the brain. That is a waste of time. All you need to do is figure out how it actually works and map the algorithm to other kinds of hardware.

>> No.4725851

>>4725849
Jesus Christ, /sci/ is just more and more populated with the worst kinds of people. Reported.

>> No.4725853

we'll make computers as powerful as the brain but not computers that can emulate the brain
brains are pretty complex yo

>> No.4725965

>>4725837
No, modern computers process only using Boolean logic. The human brain is a mix of analog and spike domain processing.

also all this crap about estimating the brain's computational power in terms of FLOPS is retarded.

>> No.4726400

>>4725849

Example? No one is going to believe your shit.

>> No.4726438
File: 65 KB, 500x327, the-fuck-is-this-shit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4726438

20x10^15? Does anyone else have a problem with this???

>> No.4726449

The actual human brain? I don't know, they'd have to take a completely different approach.

Something just as impressive in terms of AI? Probably.

>> No.4726470

>>4725965
>also all this crap about estimating the brain's computational power in terms of FLOPS is retarded

This. Strictly speaking computers surpassed the human brain in FLOPS pretty much from the moment they were created.

How many floating point operations can you people do in a second? Yeah, that's what I thought.

>> No.4726499

>>4725837
Yeah, alright, 'simple' processes like senses could probably be compared to a computer, but how would one 'create' consciousness? We don't even fully understand neo- archi- & paleocortex (Structures that probably, according to Luria, are involved in basic consciousness such as the veto-effect), and - as said - what we know about qualia is pretty much, that stimulation of limbic areas (and also gangliomas) can create qualia, and that these are active during said. We cannot - and must not! - isolate qualia to these areas alone. Nothing is a function of an area alone, it's always a function of a functional system.

>> No.4726504

>>4726470
seconded.

>> No.4728563

it's not a problem of hardware, it's a problem of algorithms. if you know how to perform the brain's functions but can't because you're, say, using hardware 1,000 times less powerful than necessary to do it properly, you just run the simulation at 1/1,000th the speed.

>> No.4728579

>implying moore's law won't die in my lifetime
feels bad man

>> No.4728591

>>4725780
It'll never be as smart as a human

>> No.4728615

>>4726438

Maybe it would've been 2. instead of 2.0; make for more understanding for those w/o sig fig knowledge.

>> No.4728628

>>4725965
Neurons are integrators; they sum their (weighted) inputs. That's an analogue operation, which isn't drastically different from a FLOP. Also, you could change the goal from "number of FLOPS the brain does" into "number of FLOPS needed for a decent brain simulation" and it's effectively the same argument.

>>4725825
Because of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis It doesn't matter whether a brain and a lump of silicon share anything in common; the silicon is Turing Complete, so it can simulate the brain.

>> No.4728650

>>4725825
This is not what that picture claims.

That picture claims that a human brain can be simulated in real time with a computer whose main processor goes as a specific speed.

At a speed higher than that, we can simulate the human brain at higher speeds, meaning the computer can process a human's thought through simulated neurons faster than a network of real neurons can.

In other words, it thinks faster using the same process.

>> No.4729116

>>4728615
the pic says 20x10^15, not 2.0x10^15, it should be 2.0x10^16.