[Rancid]

Actually, I'm way to busy to post any sort of mathematical modeling of signal processing through analog circuits and digitally. That would take a lot of time and work. Instead, if the thread organically goes in that direction, and I feel it's warranted, then I'll do it.

[Rancid]

That dumbass in the youtube video is also saying a bunch of nothing, an attempt to sound profound and complicated by throwing a few words together. First he attempts to explain that an algorithm is a just a ridge set of instructions that are always followed the same way. First this isn't true. Again, I refer you to the areas of machine learning, neutral networks, machine training, self modifying code, etc. etc. Second, he throws some shit about brains being criterial, in that they are able to distinguish categorical data which is something a ridge algorithm can't do. Again, total bullshit. You can prove this wrong by using excel filters.

Of fucking god damn course computers can be criterial. It's the only way machine learning algorithms can exist. It's the only way basic computer decision making can be made. How the fuck else would you do it?

Who is this guy? He's a fucking moron.

[Potemkin]

That dumbass in the youtube video is also saying a bunch of nothing, an attempt to sound profound and complicated by throwing a few words together. First he attempts to explain that an algorithm is a just a ridge set of instructions that are always followed the same way. First this isn't true. Again, I refer you to the areas of machine learning, neutral networks, machine training, self modifying code, etc. etc. Second, he throws some shit about brains being criterial, in that they are able to distinguish categorical data which is something a ridge algorithm can't do. Again, total bullshit. You can prove this wrong by using excel filters.

Of fucking god damn course computers can be criterial. It's the only way machine learning algorithms can exist. It's the only way basic computer decision making can be made. How the fuck else would you do it?

Who is this guy? He's a fucking moron.

He's not a moron, just intellectually dishonest. He's basically trying to assert that humans have a soul and computers don't. Which is fine, but he's dressing it up in pseudo-scientific jargon to make it sound more plausible.

[Rancid]

He's not a moron, just intellectually dishonest. He's basically trying to assert that humans have a soul and computers don't. Which is fine, but he's dressing it up in pseudo-scientific jargon to make it sound more plausible.

Ugh, I guess you're right....

[Potemkin]

If you want to read the non-retarded arguments in favour of a special status for the human brain, you should read the work of Roger Penrose instead. Unlike this guy, he actually knows something about science. Lol.

[Rancid]

If you want to read the non-retarded arguments in favour of a special status for the human brain, you should read the work of Roger Penrose instead. Unlike this guy, he actually knows something about science. Lol.

Perhaps I should. Thanks for the recommendation.

[Potemkin]

Here's a taster for you, Rancito....

[Rancid]

Here's a taster for you, Rancito....

That was much better, and actually interesting compared to that other video.

Thanks

[Potemkin]

No problemo, Rancito!

[Decky]

Did they have computadoras in Mexico Rancito? Or did you only start studying them when you crossed the Rio Grande?

[mikema63]

I think we can all agree that brains are magic.

[Sivad]

@Sivad
Why not be intellectually honest and just assert that humans have a soul and computers don't? You are, after all, making an unprovable metaphysical claim rather than a scientific claim. You should own that.

I haven't made any metaphysical claim at all. How exactly does rejection of computationalism entail a commitment to substance dualism? Also, how is computationalism incompatible with substance dualism?

He's not a moron, just intellectually dishonest. He's basically trying to assert that humans have a soul and computers don't. Which is fine, but he's dressing it up in pseudo-scientific jargon to make it sound more plausible.

I'm not sure if you're referring to me or Tse but neither of us are trying to assert anything like that. BTW, Tse is a fairly prominent and well respected scientist -
Peter Ulric Tse

Associate Professor
Harvard University, 1992-1998, PhD Cognitive Psychology, with Patrick Cavanagh and Ken Nakayama

Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, 1999-2001, post-doc, fMRI, with Nikos Logothetis

We use fMRI, DTI, and psychophysics in my lab to investigate the cognitive and neural bases of visual perception, attention and consciousness. Our research focuses on the visual perception of 3D form and motion, and how these two types of information interact with each other and with attention. Because the 2D visual image is inherently ambiguous, the visual system must construct 3D percepts on the basis of assumptions about the image-to-world mapping. One of our team's goals is to understand the assumptions that underlie the construction of visual percepts, and to understand the neuronal circuits that could realize such constructive processes. In addition to vision, attention and consciousness my lab has become increasingly interested in studying the neural bases of human creativity, free will and symbolic processing as well.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~petertse/

If you want to read the non-retarded arguments in favour of a special status for the human brain, you should read the work of Roger Penrose instead. Unlike this guy, he actually knows something about science. Lol.

What a joke.

[Sivad]

Computation is defined syntactically and syntax by itself is not sufficient for mental contents.

[Sivad]

[One Degree]

Goody, I can talk out of my ass and not be alone. About those smaller and smaller computers you are finding in the brain? Seems a trend in science. The trend should mean we reduce till we find the connection to the universe. Isn’t that kind of where we are with other matter? It will be a very long time before we make a computer like that. All those connections are making connections outside of us. As @RhetoricThug mentioned, the merging of internal and external thought. The existence of Inspiration has always told us it’s there.

Edit: oops, Somehow I missed the earlier references to quantum physics.

[Albert]

Brain


Computer


Big difference.

[Igor Antunov]

Well the first 1,000 petaflop (1 exaflop) supercomputer is coming in 2020. The human brain has 1 exaflop of processing power.

US just built the first 200 petaflop center and China's 240 petaflop is going online end of this year. China's 1 exaflop center is on schedule for mid-2020 to be followed by exaflop machines in europe and japan and one delayed to 2021-22 in US.

However the brain is not 1:1 with such a supercomputer because simulation/emulation is inherently inefficient. As with emulating a wii game for example (meant to run on 700mhz system) you need a 3ghz cpu.

We will be a able to simulate a human brain in <15 years.

[Robert Urbanek]

From 2016:

Researchers discovered that, unlike a classical computer that codes information as 0s and 1s, a brain cell uses 26 different ways to code its “bits.” They calculated that the brain could store 1 petabyte (or a quadrillion bytes) of information.

https://www.livescience.com/53751-brain-could-store-internet.html

The bottom line is that biochemistry stores memory more effectively than electrons in a computer, where much of the energy is wasted as heat. Perhaps artificial intelligence is overrated.