Just currious...

Interested in Robotics? Here's the place to be.
User avatar
dacflyer
Posts: 4409
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 1:01 am
Location: USA / North Carolina / Fayetteville
Contact:

Just currious...

Post by dacflyer » Wed Aug 14, 2002 11:42 am

comparing a human brain to a hd.<p>how many gigs +/- whould it be comapred to the human brain<p>and what is our Mhz compared to a processor ?<p>from what i hear a computer could not keep up with us,,,because we do soo many different functions that many computers whould be needed,,,<p>just currious :roll:

hlreed
Posts: 349
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Richmond, TX
Contact:

Re: Just currious...

Post by hlreed » Wed Aug 14, 2002 12:29 pm

dacflyer,
Good question. Lot of crap about brains and computers. First, a computer is a one dimensional, sequential machine and brains are multidemensional. The microbe brain has at least two computers in it. Food = thisway - thatway and danger = thatway - thisway. This allows it to navigate between good and bad. The human brain is large but finite. The C. elgans worm has 308 neurons. Each neuron input is equal to a computer.
To get the human brain size you must count the neurons. The size of any brain can be catagorized as S,N,M where S is sensors, N is neurons, and M is motors. C. elgans is 84,210,14. I have the code for a full size robot that is 74,257,34.
Far as I know nobody is counting the neurons in the human brain. It should be done.
Harold L. Reed
Microbes got brains

User avatar
dacflyer
Posts: 4409
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 1:01 am
Location: USA / North Carolina / Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Just currious...

Post by dacflyer » Mon Aug 19, 2002 7:39 pm

i suppose this could get really deep..lol

hlreed
Posts: 349
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Richmond, TX
Contact:

Re: Just currious...

Post by hlreed » Tue Aug 20, 2002 8:34 am

It starts simple though. The complexity is in the numbers. The computer is decode <= fetch.
Brain is Action <= Do - Don't Do. Computer is one dimensional. Brain is multidemensional.
Problem is people start at the top. You have to understand the brain of a microbe before you can start to understand a human brain. That is why robotics is important. All the literature in the world means nothing unless you can build something from it.
It is a deep question.
Harold L. Reed
Microbes got brains

bwts
Posts: 229
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: britain
Contact:

Re: Just currious...

Post by bwts » Mon Sep 02, 2002 12:18 pm

The brain operates at a frequency of 60 Hz. This the frequency that vision works on anyway. The major problem when comparing a computer with a brain is that the brain is an analogue device (device sounds a bit detatched but Im sure you know what I mean) and a computer (for the most part anyway) is a digital or discrete device, that is, things are done in definite stages where as brains work with continuums (I tried a few spellings of continuos but still cant get it)that is, things progress in a seemless way.<p>B
"Nothing is true, all is permitted" - Hassan i Sabbah

Isenbergdoug
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 1:01 am
Location: N.C.
Contact:

Re: Just currious...

Post by Isenbergdoug » Mon Sep 02, 2002 6:11 pm

Try this link,
http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/project. ... .scan.html
I read the article a couple of years ago. Moravec derives the speed computers must run at to compare to a human, very interesting. One of his books is basically devoted to this, Robot Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind, and his other might be also, I haven't read the other. <p>Enjoy,
Douglas

hlreed
Posts: 349
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Richmond, TX
Contact:

Re: Just currious...

Post by hlreed » Tue Sep 03, 2002 9:59 am

To all.
The computer is a simple linear device that must be stuffed by a programmer. Its algebra is:
Decode = fetch ; fetch reads a linear array of
registers that are filled by a human.
The least brain is equal to two computers programmed by nature, meaning contiuous programming forever. To compare any brain with any computer is useless. It is not a speed problem, it is a combinatorial problem. The brain is not a computer but you can build brains with multiple computers, using functions to represent neurons.
Analog data is not a number. (Analog cannot cycle, it sticks to VCC or ground while numbers simply roll over, producing a new computation.) I doubt if anything in nature is analog. To be continuous you must use numbers at least to integers. Analog is continuous only by convention.
Analog number = (VCC - ground)/base. Change VCC and you change the whole number system.)
Brains must obey the rules of arithmetic. Without numbers, you have no rules.
Sorry, one of you hit a nerve.
Lets keep talking.
Harold L. Reed
Microbes got brains

bwts
Posts: 229
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: britain
Contact:

Re: Just currious...

Post by bwts » Fri Sep 06, 2002 5:25 am

"Analog cannot cycle, it sticks to VCC or ground while numbers simply roll over, producing a new computation." what does this mean???? Analogue signals can be at any level between Vcc or ground (electronically speaking) also the word analogue is not just an electrical term an analogue of something can also be a reresentation of a thing, for instance, for the sake of confusion a computer can be an analoge of a brain.
Personaly I dont prescribe to the idea that everything is numbers, I think numbers are powerful desctiptive tools but are at times deceptive by give the apperance of universe being made up of discrete parts which it appears not to be.<p>B
"Nothing is true, all is permitted" - Hassan i Sabbah

hlreed
Posts: 349
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Richmond, TX
Contact:

Re: Just currious...

Post by hlreed » Fri Sep 06, 2002 8:37 am

Mr B
Words have different meanings in different contexts of course. A number is a abstract adjective. All we can see are symbols of numbers.
Count the symbols, add one for zero and you have the base of the number digit. Analog voltage numbers do not fit this definition.
Base 2 symbols are 0 1. Count them, there are two.
Counting is 0 1 0 1 0 1. They roll over. Every number can be made into a single digit by choosing a base. 123 is a single digit in base 1000 (or base 124). Let base float and you get rid of infinite numbers.
Analog voltages cannot cycle this way. I call base 0 ground and base 1 voltage. The numbers in here are ratios, not pure numbers. That's all I mean.
Thanks for the comment and conversation.
Harold L. Reed
Microbes got brains

bwts
Posts: 229
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: britain
Contact:

Re: Just currious...

Post by bwts » Mon Sep 09, 2002 7:18 am

I think I get your argument Harold and I think you'll find that nature almost exclusively deals with ratios, pi springs to mind.
"Nothing is true, all is permitted" - Hassan i Sabbah

hlreed
Posts: 349
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Richmond, TX
Contact:

Re: Just currious...

Post by hlreed » Mon Sep 09, 2002 8:22 am

Yes, ratios abound. But these are human ideas. Question is, where does nature put the real number decimal point. Chemical arithmetic is based on addition, holes attract poles. Comparison and direction are given by subtraction. Question is, is there a mechanism in nature that multiplies and divides? Since multiplication is repeated addition and division is a count of subtractions, there is no doubt the actions of nature can be discribed with real numbers. Question is whether nature does it.
Hal algebra is a system I wrote to build brains in the same sense that Shannon algebra builds computers. I use -, + , max, min and so on, about 16 in all, but no multiplication or division. Could use it but don't think it is needed. (Not yet anyhow.)
This is good stuff Mr B. Far from the original question though.
Harold L. Reed
Microbes got brains

bwts
Posts: 229
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: britain
Contact:

Re: Just currious...

Post by bwts » Wed Sep 11, 2002 4:18 am

Mmmmm the point I'm trying to make (+ maybe get back to the orginal question) is that number is an artifical concept made up by humans to stop themselves going insane. Nature has no use for numbers in fact when an attempt to map nature with numbers is made we encounter such strange entities as imaginary numbers and irrational numbers. You can only get so far using numbers (ie computational methods) when trying to simulate brain function as intuition (and the like) have no reliance on mathematical formulation. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder not the anatomical analysis of the scientist.<p>B
"Nothing is true, all is permitted" - Hassan i Sabbah

hlreed
Posts: 349
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Richmond, TX
Contact:

Re: Just currious...

Post by hlreed » Wed Sep 11, 2002 9:38 am

That is the deep question. Numbers are also codes.
With numbers you can compute. With language you must code the language with number before you can compute. Computation is different from description. There are more numbers than words.
John is a big man. Let big = 1 and man = 1
John = 2. John differs from man by 1.
John is a big, rich man.
Now John = 3 and is growing in complexity.
When I started this stuff I was trying to make a computer program to read language. It failed because of the context problem. Brain is the architecture of the neurons. There you have trees that retain context. This computer I am writing on has no way of knowing meaning, but it works ok with binary numbers. What if you have thousands of them all talking at the same time. That is what my Hal algebra allows.
Harold L. Reed
Microbes got brains

bwts
Posts: 229
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: britain
Contact:

Re: Just currious...

Post by bwts » Sat Sep 14, 2002 8:59 am

NUMBERS ARE WORDS
"Nothing is true, all is permitted" - Hassan i Sabbah

OneStone
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Aus
Contact:

Re: Just currious...

Post by OneStone » Sun Sep 15, 2002 10:41 am

Wow! quite a snit going on over, perhaps, one of the most asked questions since the dawn of computing. I strongly suggest that those really interest read the 2002 Scientific American special on the human brain, as a starting point. The brain is multiply parallel in its operation, but not in the way that you might apply parallel processing to computing, it is not numeric either, nor wholly symbolic. It works faster than 60Hz (must be that some people sync to mains frequency ) but is still a comparatively slow device, in that communications between its disparate parts occurs at a snails pace compared to data transfers on a computer.<p>The best example of the complexity of brain operation is in the article on learnt fear. The storage of long term memory/dream interpretation is also excellent. It appears that much of the brains stored data is stored as spacial images of the memory, ie a chess board is stored as neurons interconnected in a checkerboard pattern, obviously this is not so for sound and smells, but one could extrapolate that sounds might be remembered by the pattern of cochleal hairs they excited. So back to hard drives. Since memory is not stored linearly it cannot be compared at any rational level to a hard drive. There are billions of neurons in the human brain. But they are not all computers, in fact they change their function during processing and appear to have an analog aspect to their operation, ie their 'willingness' to conduct, or to absorb a protein.<p>Cheers<p>Al

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest