Does your brain outpower a computer?

[Line]

I've been hearing that our very brains have more computing power than the highest of computers. IS this true. I mean what do we d o that's all that complex without brains. I know consciously we don't have very much math ability but unconsciously we do. By the way, which mental activities use the most working of our mind?

I also hear that there are more conversations from the left and right side of your brain than there are from North America to Europe per day. I wonder if we use much power as we sleep. Seeing that computers have millions and millions of transistors on one microchip and process extremely hard programs I don't see what we do that's so fantastic without minds.

 

[Danger]

Line, I don't know whether or not you've ever looked into neurology from the physical rather than psychological standpoint. The brain consists of something on the order of 200,000,000,000 neurons, each interfaced with up to a thousand others. When you start working out how many data points that can entail, you'll realize that the most complex artificial computer imaginable can't come close to replicating our thought processes. As a simple answer to your question, you thought to ask the question; a computer wouldn't because it can't think.

 

[0rthodontist]

Well, but how much of the brain is actually devoted to thinking and how much is devoted to sensory or physical processing? In my opinion there is no particular reason why a powerful computer, programmed correctly, couldn't think.
http://www.transhumanist.com/volume1/moravec.htm is an interesting article on the subject.

 

[Astronuc]

Computers/processors must be programmed whereas the brain seems to be able to develop and understanding without external programming, although brains require sources of sensory stimulation, which originate externally.

Brains have intelligence, computers have 'artificial intelligence', or AI. Humans just haven't figured out how the brain develops intelligence, or the ability to think, so that the process can be rendered in a microchip.

In general, what brains cannot do is perform complex computations which computers can do, but only with instructions.

As of 2006, chip areas range from a few square mm to around 250 mm2, with up to 1 million transistors per mm²

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_circuit

 

[Danger]

Well, but how much of the brain is actually devoted to thinking and how much is devoted to sensory or physical processing?

The problem with that question is that it isn't answerable at this stage of scientific understanding. No one knows what thinking is, or how we do it. There is intense research underway to determine that, but it's not tremendously successful. Bear in mind as well that the external signal processing is part of the thinking process. The preliminary 'filtering' is subconscious, but anything of interest is instantly flagged and sent to the cerebral cortex for attention. That's still 'thought', as evidenced by the fact that you can programme it to respond to something like a baby whimpering that would ordinarily be unnoticed, and to ignore something like a train going by.
I agree that at some point a computer will be able to think, possibly even the same way that a human does if analogue circuits are used, but not until we know how to create it.

 

[0rthodontist]

It's true that we are probably many years from a thinking computer, but we do already have programs that can learn--albeit often in simple ways--on their own. People also must be "programmed" to learn, by their genes.

 

[Line]

Thinking requires you to be conscious. COmputers far as I know can never be conscious. What we do is think, what computers do is process. Do we even use any brainpower while thinking> If it were just neurons it would be like the autonomic part of our brain, the part that controls heart function,temperature,and breathing while we are sleep. But there's something differnt in the conscious part, something that makes us...aware. WHat I'm trying to ilude to is ,is it our brain that's doing the thinking when we think or our minds? Science ahsn't proved the existence of the consciousness. If you're still perplexed it's the same concept in QUantam Pgysics as the spirit or soul is in religion.

Iw we had no consciouss it would be just liek we are when we're asleep...unconsciouss. BUt we are aware, alert and awake. I'm not sure if the nrain does any thinking at all or just translates our thoughts into electrical signals. Then come sthe hard question...where are our thoughts,where do they originate from? Are they juststarted off by neurons or some consciousness linked to our in our brains.

One sign that something is consciouss is freewill. We humans can do whatever we want to. SUre we've got instinct and natures calls but we don't have to do something if we don't want to. COmputers however live on a set plan, a set of rules called a program, no matter what it does it has to follow them. It's not thinking but just following rules and instructions. And just liek what happens to a thought where does sensory input go. We see it go from our eyes,ears, nose,tonguemand skin up our nerves to our brain centers. But where does it go after that? Does it just stop at the last neuron or go to a unexplored place. The place called the consciousness.


COnsciousness can never be on a computer. Until we we can do that computers will never truly think. So for calculating it may be the unconsciouss part that's fdoing it.

 

[Danger]

Unfortunately, the end of this is going to be a philisophical discussion rather than a scientific one. The opinion of how thought works, rather than the explanation, is purely subjective. I do not believe in anything that hints of supernaturalism, including a mind that's separate from the brain. To me, thinking is strictly an electrochemical process. How the neurons interact to produce consciousness is what current research is concentrating on, and that's the approach than my interest lies in.

 

[rbj]

my $0.02:

this device called a "transputer" is more like a neuron connected to a bunch of other similar devices and represents more closely the architecture of the brain. not sure they'll ever make transputers small enough to connect 100 billion of them with 100 trillion different connections (to put it on par with the human brain), but i kinda doubt it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transputer

anyway, to compare crudely, it's like we have a trillion or so bytes of memory but a slow CPU (about 40 Hz in our prime, about 17 years old) in our head. compared to silicon computers with far less memory and a far faster CPU. so, as a consequence, the silicon computer will likely evalutate heuristic functions that require a lot of computations and relatively less memory, and we just "look it up". it's sort of like the silicon guys use a sort of Taylor or Maclauren series to evaluate \sin(x) while our fleshy computer will just do a table lookup. slow CPUs with lotsa memory will optimally do table lookup over crunching numbers, but fast CPUs with much less memory will crunch the numbers instead of wasting a lot of space on a bunch of huge tables.

so the 17 year olds mind works a lot faster (about 40 simple compare-and-conditional-branch instructions per second in our stream of consciousness, there are a lot more parallel instructions per second happening a the neural level) but has a smaller database than the middle-aged person with a slower CPU but lots of experience that can still be looked up pretty fast.

about consciousness, it's been speculated (i don't know if it's true or not) that consciousness in higher species was evolved as a consequence of the need (or advantage) of integrating all of the different stimuli together with all of the different motor control. individuals of a proto-species that would better integrate all of this had a natural advantage regarding Natural Selection than individuals that had only reflexive reactions to stimuli. integrating all of this made for better decisions than mindlessly doing knee-jerk reactions and those protoplasms that could integrate and see a bigger picture of their existence and environment had a better chance of surviving long enough to do the horizontal bop and sire those who eventually sired people who could dream up microprocessors, space shuttles, and Barbie dolls. this "integration" of all of the various stimuli and motor control might very well be what our consciousness is.

we are already designing computers to do self-modifying code, a crude form of cognition. might be scary someday, perhaps in this century, if one of those AI machines does enough self-modifying code and becomes sentient. it might never happen. i dunno.

 

[Mickey]

There are many estimates of the brain's computational capacity based on work investigating individual regions. For example, Hans Moravec, after calculating the computational capacity of the retina and its systems, estimates the computational capacity of the entire brain at 10^14 instructions per second. Lloyd Watts, after working with the ears, also came to an estimate of 10^14 calculations per second. After studying the cerebellum, researchers from the University of Texas estimated 10^15 cps.

Ray Kurzweil outlines these studies in his latest book, The Singularity is Near, and opts for a more "conservative" estimate of 10^16 cps.

Right now, IBM's Blue Gene/L provides 3.6 x 10^14 cps, greater than the lowest estimates above.

Of course, this is all numbers. It doesn't take into account the functional differences between a computer and a brain. However, in terms of raw power, brains and computers appear evenly matched at this point in time.

Savor it while it lasts.

 

[NoTime]

Massive parallel beats clock spead.
Still waiting to see a computer run up and down stairs.

That and a few other things before I worry too much about consciousness.

 

[Francis M]

To the original post, Line: IMO our brain has computers beat in processing power due to the massive amount of connections neurons make. I think our brain makes up for a slow processing speed (if you will bear with the non technical explanations, that's all I have, sorry) by having these millions of parallel connections.
I think in computer parlance (as a programming friend of mine put it) it means that while we have a slower clock speed, we have a deeper decision tree.

 

[Line]

BUt what do we use it all for?

 

[Francis M]

THat's still being researched by scientists from multiple fields. It's an ongoing discovery.
BTW, Don't forget to check out the Biology, Mind and Brain Chemistry forum on this site.
You can also get into some pretty heavy stuff in the Metaphysics & Epistemology section under the Philosophy forum too, if that's more of what you're steering towards which is my guess from post #7.

 

[Mickey]

Still waiting to see a computer run up and down stairs.

Simple robotic contraptions have been able to do that for a while now. A slinky already accomplishes half of that task. Bipedal robots are jogging already, so emulating the energy inefficient human form is not far off either.

Machines were flying upstairs before they were ever walking them.

That and a few other things before I worry too much about consciousness.

You shouldn't ever have to worry. Any fear of the fact that artificial life will be conscious is simply a prejudice.

 

[NoTime]

Simple robotic contraptions have been able to do that for a while now. A slinky already accomplishes half of that task. Bipedal robots are jogging already, so emulating the energy inefficient human form is not far off either.

Machines were flying upstairs before they were ever walking them.

Cute
I rather ment to limit my comment to bipedal robots.

And I might point out that the human is hardly inefficient. It's only been in the last year or two that any walking machine has been built that even remotely approaches human efficiency.

You shouldn't ever have to worry. Any fear of the fact that artificial life will be conscious is simply a prejudice.

Nothing to do with fear. Just don't see it happening anytime soon.

 

[Danger]

Although it's not bipedal, here's an interesting walking robot. I can't help thinking of it as two guys in a horse costume. Patience is required; it's a slow site, and the sound is very irritating.

http://www.gizmag.com/go/5305/"

 

[PhY]

I've been hearing that our very brains have more computing power than the highest of computers. IS this true. I mean what do we d o that's all that complex without brains. I know consciously we don't have very much math ability but unconsciously we do. By the way, which mental activities use the most working of our mind?

I also hear that there are more conversations from the left and right side of your brain than there are from North America to Europe per day. I wonder if we use much power as we sleep. Seeing that computers have millions and millions of transistors on one microchip and process extremely hard programs I don't see what we do that's so fantastic without minds.

Our brains are far more powerful than any computer. No computer is more powerful than a Turing machine (a sequential symbol manipulating device [imagine a head that reads states or symbols off a tape ).

Quantum Computers can break this law/thesis, but they haven't yet, because quantum computers have been simulated by a Turing Machine.

Now I am not sure if our brains are as powerful as a Turing Machine, but I seriously doubt you can simulate a human brain on a Turing Machine. I personally think it will be an incomputable problem, because I do not think our brain works in the same way a Turing machine does.

Take note: A computer is stupid, no computer ever thought of gravity. A computer is just a Mathematical Machine (look up combinatorics). No computer ever innovated or aspired. It isn't capable of individual thought (yet).

Infact there is no such thing as Strong A.I (human intelligence or exceeded), I believe currently there is only Weak ( I have yet to research this though). Weak or Real A.I. according to my lecturer is just an approximation technique to run exponential time program (such as Traveling salesman problem) optimized to polynomial time.


To directly answer your question: With all this technology, information, biology and mathemathics, we still as a human race do not fully understand how the brain really and truly functions. Therefore at present it is impossible to simulate on any machine. Therefore my honest opinion is that our Brain is more powerful and I base my assumption on the fact that we cannot simulate our brain on a Turing Machine. Also Strong A.I. doesn't exist.
Computers cannot think, therefore our intelligence is far greater and if so I suppose more powerful.

Might I also add a Researcher is at present is trying to decode the Brain language, I read this on the BBC and watched a video (Human V2 by horizon). Maybe you will find this interesting and might answer your questions better.

 

[N468989]

Does your brain overpower a computer?
This is the question.It has been stated that the brain does huge amounts of processing, well we cannot even imagine to what extent it's real power is. Do we even have enough brainpower to calculate this?

If the brain overpowers a computer would we need computers? so this question might be the answer.

The bottom line is: Computers overpower the brain in some situations, and of course the brain overpowers computers in other situations.

if we compare the evolution time involved (millions vs hundreds), we will soon understand it's only a matter of time until computers overpower brain.

 

[es1]

Since, according to the link below, the human brian consumes 40W or less I would say yes, a computer can out power the brain. But as one would suspect, it really depends on the particular computer and particular brain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(power )

 

[Pythagorean]

One of our greatest differences is that the brain can process a lot of information in parallel (like how we are able to see, identify, and organize things visually all at once. There's a lot of data coming through our eyes (and other sensory) and we are able to react to it almost seamlessly.

A computer, on the other hand, is the master of series calculations. It can take a whole bunch of operations, one after the other, and execute them quickly. Most math problems we encounter, for instance, are series problems (it takes a series of logic steps to get a single solution or set of solutions). Here, the computer is much quicker than us.

 

[XPTPCREWX]

Computors are subject to logic, their operations can be calculated and predicted.
Our Brains however can do the same but cannot be predicted because it is subject to continuous change.

Our thinking affects who we are and who we are affects out thinking.

Computors do not share this paradox, they are not alive and hence will never think.

 

[N468989]

We program computers to do the thinking for us. We make algorithms which need to be understood by the logic machine, thus use the computers power to do the thinking for us.
Of course computers don't think, but sometimes we don't even think.

Actually i think, that 90% of our brain is not used for thinking : )

 

[XPTPCREWX]

intelligence:

1: the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason ; also : the skilled use of reason

2: the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)

3: the act of understanding : comprehension

 

[XPTPCREWX]

We program computers to do the thinking for us. We make algorithms which need to be understood by the logic machine, thus use the computers power to do the thinking for us.
Of course computers don't think, but sometimes we don't even think.

Actually i think, that 90% of our brain is not used for thinking : )

Performing operations is not thinking. Thinking is applying reasoning and judgement.

 

[Proton Soup]

much of what our brains do is signal processing and pattern matching. silly things like edge detection are easy for us (even spiders), but so difficult to implement in silicon. eventually, engineers will get much better at this than we are now. until then, humans win there. humans are also pretty good at making snap decisions based on very little information. as bad as it is, our statistical processing is pretty good. where computers really have us beat, and we'll never be able to match, is working memory. the amount of objects they can juggle at once allows them to solve problems we're simply incapable of doing.

the biggest disadvantage for computers is that they aren't self-modifying. they can't really go outside of their programming. i don't think they'll ever have what we think of as intelligence until they reach that point of automated learning and modification. and if they do, we're probably screwed.

 

[Denton]

a computer wouldn't because it can't think.

Thats because its not programmed to think.

 

[XPTPCREWX]

Thats because its not programmed to think.

you cannot program thinking.


Show me a computer that created a thought or an idea outside of its logic.

 

[Mentallic]

Show me a computer that created a thought or an idea outside of its logic.

Stick around for a few more generations and one may just be programmed to do just that.

 

[XPTPCREWX]

Stick around for a few more generations and one may just be programmed to do just that.

Thats a contradiction in itself. "PROGRAMMED" to "THINK"

if you were instructed what to do and how to do it for the rest of your life, and did not realize it I would say you wern't "thinking"... no matter how complex the task might be.

Besides the only way a computers can function correctly is logically...its dependent on logic. without it... its useless. so it is confined to itself.

Our brains on the otherhand are free to do what we want whether immoral, unjust, unreasonable, impulsive, illogical, self-destructive, spontaneous, whatever...

 

[N468989]

Thats a contradiction in itself. "PROGRAMMED" to "THINK"

if you were instructed what to do and how to do it for the rest of your life, and did not realize it I would say you weren't "thinking"... no matter how complex the task might be.

Besides the only way a computers can function correctly is logically...its dependent on logic. without it... its useless. so it is confined to itself.

Our brains on the other hand are free to do what we want whether immoral, unjust, unreasonable, impulsive, illogical, self-destructive, spontaneous, whatever...

Well, if you see it that way , we can assume that we were programmed to be immoral, unjust, unreasonable, impulsive, illogical, self-destructive, spontaneous, whatever...

One may think that we are capable of everything and anything, but we are not. We have our fisical and mental limitations, for example let's take the human hearing system, we can hear sounds from 20Hz to 20Khz this is what we were programmed for. We, instead of being "programmed" to be logical and systematic, are quite the oposite.
If we look at the physics inside us, we will discover that even us humans, have electric signals flowing throughout our body.

 

[Mentallic]

Thats a contradiction in itself. "PROGRAMMED" to "THINK"

if you were instructed what to do and how to do it for the rest of your life, and did not realize it I would say you wern't "thinking"... no matter how complex the task might be.

It is of course not impossible to assimilate robots into the human population. They would act like any other normal human. While this might not truly be 'thinking', if it can make reasonable choices to react accordingly in a situation, where is the significance in whether it thought about it, or followed a program?
Are we even completely understanding about what thinking really is? For learning it is a valuable tool, but often after this stage in life we go by precedence. e.g. 'Oh it really hurt when I touched that blade last time, so I won't touch it this time'
Robots could skip the entire learning process by their integration. Their life will consist entirely of 'precedence'.

Or possibly even, we cannot even yet to fathom how complex computers will become. Thinking could even be inferior.

 

[XPTPCREWX]

It is of course not impossible to assimilate robots into the human population. They would act like any other normal human.

True, but humans have the ability to think, and the will to do it whether they like it or not. as robots do not.

While this might not truly be 'thinking', if it can make reasonable choices to react accordingly in a situation, where is the significance in whether it thought about it, or followed a program?

Thats the point, "IT" can't make reasonable choices. We obviously made it's choices first.
If it were able to "learn" as you imply.

Then it would be able to determine what's best for "itself" which is absurd because WE are the ones that gave IT a purpose in the first place. WE are the ones who determine what is best for it. No purpose exists other than this which we gave it.

Are we even completely understanding about what thinking really is? For learning it is a valuable tool, but often after this stage in life we go by precedence. e.g. 'Oh it really hurt when I touched that blade last time, so I won't touch it this time'

This applies if you are a vegetable.

Robots could skip the entire learning process by their integration. Their life will consist entirely of 'precedence'.

If all robots were designed to do this how would you expect them to "integrate" a standard if it skips the "learning process"

 

[Mentallic]

A computer follows a set of instructions to solve a problem. A human thinks about the problem and applies the methods learned thus far to solve it. The steps are the same, the conclusion is the same, what really is different here?

Thats the point, "IT" can't make reasonable choices. We obviously made it's choices first.
If it were able to "learn" as you imply.

Then it would be able to determine what's best for "itself" which is absurd because WE are the ones that gave IT a purpose in the first place. WE are the ones who determine what is best for it. No purpose exists other than this which we gave it.

Good point. And this is what I believe brinks the gap between humans and computers. Computers are more superior in many ways, except that they are yet capable of judgement.

This applies if you are a vegetable.

Please elaborate. I am curious how a vegetable (possibly a carrot) would be physically able to touch a blade
Life is full of situations where following precedence can determine similar outcomes. Of course with some thought as to how one should react to the slight differences of the new scenario. If a computer were 'taught' to react to nearly any seemingly possible life experience, it would be capable of being considered A.I.

If all robots were designed to do this how would you expect them to "integrate" a standard if it skips the "learning process"

Sorry I meant the robots would have all they need to know integrated into their circuits prior to being thrown into society.

 

[N468989]

Believe it or not. Humans are programmed! Well if we go down to the core of question we will discover that everyone has a genetic code, which we call DNA. This code is unique (i mean without cloning , etc).

"...DNA is often compared to a set of blueprints or a recipe, or a code, since it contains the instructions needed to construct other components of cells, such as proteins and RNA molecules. The DNA segments that carry this genetic information are called genes, but other DNA sequences have structural purposes, or are involved in regulating the use of this genetic information."

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

This means that we are programmed and can think?

Of course computers cannot think (yet), but if it were possible to make computers to learn (e.g: fire is dangerous), then act correctly (e.g: avoid everything being fire related). Can consider that thinking? We do the same thing, learn from falling down, or seeing others fall down. Do you need to put your hand in fire know that it will hurt? Or do you need to drink a cup of boiling water to know that it be bad for you?
these questions answer many other questions.

 

[XPTPCREWX]

Please elaborate. I am curious how a vegetable (possibly a carrot) would be physically able to touch a blade
Life is full of situations where following precedence can determine similar outcomes. Of course with some thought as to how one should react to the slight differences of the new scenario. If a computer were 'taught' to react to nearly any seemingly possible life experience, it would be capable of being considered A.I.

Vegetable...a not so intellegent lifeform (figurative)



Having "DNA" is not being programmed, it is your "genetic makeup" or "design" that you are referring to...

Now I guess you could say we are programmed to breathe, but "programmed" isn't the right word here. All life has an "inherent" "nature" or an "essence" to "continue its existence", to perpetuate, preserve, and protect "itself"...whatever "itself" may be...whether "consciously" or "subcounsiously", from the moment we are born.
(...perhaps this is why that which has "life" is "afraid" to "die"?)

This is found in all lifeforms, and with that being said it is the "design" of "life" itself and NOT the term "programmed" that you speak of.

If you still don't get it:

Life is an "essence" that inherently has us do something to preserve itself, its not programming.

Programming has no essence.. it just is what it is, an instruction with no other meaning. There is NO "essence", NO "intuition" that exists it to perpetuate itself.

 

[mplayer]

Perhaps life is programmed to preserve itself. Programmed is probably not the best word to use here, because it implies some consciously coded set of instructions to carry out. Whether or not life was consciously 'coded' is debatable, but in my opinion seems highly unlikely. Life is adapted to preserve itself.

An organism's genome could be analogous to a program. Genetic information within our genome consisting of DNA contains the instructions necessary for building our bodies, including our brains. Our bodies are vehicles built by genes for the purpose of perpetuating those genes, even to the detriment of the individual organism itself. Using the word program does not take away any meaning or special quality from life. It does not take away it's essence, whatever that is.

Life itself could be compared to an amazingly complex set of programmed instructions. The fact that we do not yet have the knowledge or methods to understand it fully does not necessarily mean that life has some sort of magical quality that is absolutely superior to our fairly limited computational devices.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Perhaps life is programmed to preserve itself. Programmed is probably not the best word to use here, because it implies some consciously coded set of instructions to carry out. Whether or not life was consciously 'coded' is debatable, but in my opinion seems highly unlikely. Life is adapted to preserve itself.

An organism's genome could be analogous to a program. Genetic information within our genome consisting of DNA contains the instructions necessary for building our bodies, including our brains. Our bodies are vehicles built by genes for the purpose of perpetuating those genes, even to the detriment of the individual organism itself. Using the word program does not take away any meaning or special quality from life. It does not take away it's essence, whatever that is.

Life itself could be compared to an amazingly complex set of programmed instructions. The fact that we do not yet have the knowledge or methods to understand it fully does not necessarily mean that life has some sort of magical quality that is absolutely superior to our fairly limited computational devices.

I agree with this post more than virtually anything ever posted here on PF.

 

[N468989]

"Does your brain outpower a computer?"

The answer is: Yes and No. Or if you like, we can say it depends.

It depends on what we are considering. If some situations computers outpower humans, or else we wouldn't need computers for fast and accurate calculations, processing of information, etc. There are other situations where computers cannot react or interact with new situations, from this point of view humans win.

In a distant future, i believe computers will outpower humans in over 90%, let's just look at the fact that we are limited physically and mentally. One of the uniqueness of us is the fact that we have something called conscious. Just that itself outpowers any imaginable computer system.

 

[Hurkyl]

One of the uniqueness of us is the fact that we have something called conscious. Just that itself outpowers any imaginable computer system.

Can you define "consciousness"? How do you know we have it? How do you know a computer doesn't? What about dolphins, or dogs?

What concrete, observational experiment can be used to determine what does and does not have consciousness?

 

[N468989]

Can you define "consciousness"? How do you know we have it? How do you know a computer doesn't? What about dolphins, or dogs?

What concrete, observational experiment can be used to determine what does and does not have consciousness?

I cannot define consciousness as we define other things, there is much more to it than a dictionary definition. From the definition point of view, we know we have it because we can change the state of consciousness through hypnosis, sleep, etc( if we change something in any matter, we know it exists). We can define it being something immaterial, but that would bring us to philosophical and religious complications. It's not something universally accepted by all.

 

[Hurkyl]

My intent wasn't to challenge you to solve a long-standing philosophical problem -- it was more just to come up with something that can be observed and supports your argument. You effectively claimed three things:

Humans have consciousness.
Computers do not (and cannot) have consciousness.
Consciousness involves a huge amount of 'computing' power.

from which you conclude that the human brain outpowers any imaginable computer. I don't really care if you can come up with a generally accepted definition of 'consciousness' -- I just want a definition that satisfies your three claims!

 

[Scorael]

In my humble opinion, computers have yet reached the level of intelligence as humans because so far only humans (and perhaps animals) have the ability to be curious. We wonder why the sky is blue, why it hurts when we fall, etc. While current computers can learn it cannot wonder.

By the way, I am pretty paranoid about the artificial lifeforms taking over the world thing lol. They better place a virus into every single robot just in case.

 

[aquitaine]

Recently there was something of a breakthrough regarding this

Logic circuits that program themselves: memristors in action

Integrated circuits incorporating memristors are able to successfully perform logic operations and dynamically reprogram themselves, opening the door for learning devices.

Since 1972, scientists have known there are four basic circuit components, but if you've spent any time in an electrical engineering classroom, you probably only have experience with three: capacitor, inductor, and resistor. The fourth basic component, the memristor, had remained stuck in the domain of theory--a nice idea that even the theorists thought had few practical uses. Last year, scientists at Hewlett-Packard (HP) demonstrated the first functional solid-state memristor, made from thin films of TiO2, and discovered it had an abundance of unique and highly promising properties.

A study released Monday by The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that these same TiO2 memristors can be fabricated into functional and reprogrammable integrated circuits. Scientists at HP combined a crossbar architecture of memristors with field effect transistors (FETs) to produce a convincing proof-of-concept device that includes circuits that can dynamically reprogram themselves, acting a bit like a solid-state nerve cell-like operation--a holy grail of electrical engineering.

All we needed were memristors to make this happen.

 

[XPTPCREWX]

Perhaps life is programmed to preserve itself. Programmed is probably not the best word to use here, because it implies some consciously coded set of instructions to carry out. Whether or not life was consciously 'coded' is debatable, but in my opinion seems highly unlikely. Life is adapted to preserve itself.

An organism's genome could be analogous to a program. Genetic information within our genome consisting of DNA contains the instructions necessary for building our bodies, including our brains. Our bodies are vehicles built by genes for the purpose of perpetuating those genes, even to the detriment of the individual organism itself. Using the word program does not take away any meaning or special quality from life. It does not take away it's essence, whatever that is.

Life itself could be compared to an amazingly complex set of programmed instructions. The fact that we do not yet have the knowledge or methods to understand it fully does not necessarily mean that life has some sort of magical quality that is absolutely superior to our fairly limited computational devices.

Guys seriously...Do you think a computer could ever come up with this conversation?