On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 7:03 AM, benjayk <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > On Aug 15, 10:43 pm, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I am more worried for the biologically handicapped in the future.
> >> Computers
> >> will get faster, brains won't. By 2029, it is predicted $1,000 worth of
> >> computer will buy a human brain's worth of computational power. 15
> >> later, you can get 1,000 X the human brain's power for $1,000. Imagine:
> >> the
> >> simulated get to experience 1 century for each month the humans with
> >> biological brains experience. Who will really be alive then?
> > Speed and power is for engines, not brains. Good ideas don't come from
> > engines.
> > Craig
> I agree. It is a very narrow to think computational power is the key to
> experience and high intelligence. The real magic is what is done with the
> hardware. And honestly I see no reason to believe that we somehow we
> magically develop amazingly intelligent software.
Neural imaging/scanning rates are also doubling every year. The hope is
that we can reverse engineer the brain, by scanning it and making a map all
the connections between the neurons. Then if the appropriate hardware can
run a few brains at 1,000 or 1,000,000 times faster than the biological
brain, we can put our best scientists or AI researchers inside and they can
figure it out in a few of our months.
> Software development is
> slow, no comparison to the exponential progress of hardware.
As I mentioned to Craig who complained his computer takes longer to start up
now than ever, the complexity of software is in many cases outpacing even
the exponential growth in the power of computer hardware.
> I believe that it is inherently impossible to design intelligence. It can
> just self-organize itself through becoming aware of itself.
A few genes separate us from chimps, and all of our intelligence. If we can
determine which, and see what these genes do then perhaps we can extrapolate
and find out how our DNA is able to make some brains better than others.
> I am not even
> sure anymore whether this will have to do very much to do with technology.
> Technology might have an fundamental restriction to being a tool of
> intelligence, not the means to increase intelligence at the core (just
> relative, superficial intelligence like intellectual knowledge).
I think the existence of Google and Wikipedia makes me more intelligent. If
I could embed a calculator chip into my brain my mental math skills would
> Also, we have no reliable way of measuring the computational power of the
> brain, not to speak of the possibly existing subtle energies that go beyond
> the brain, that may be essential to our functioning. The way that
> computational power of the brain is estimated now relies on a quite
> reductionstic view of what the brain is and what it does.
As I've mentioned before on this list, neuroscientists have succeeded in
creating biologically realistic neurons. The CPU requirements of these
neurons is well understood:
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at