brain Brain vs Quantum Computer!

[imreloadin]

43 minutes ago, The Realist said:

Superior to know we can trust technology %100,Superior to quantum computing,Superior to biological computing,just face it we are NO WHERE NEAR SUPERIOR,cameras are not superior,computers are not superior,phones are not superior today's technology that normal people can buy is NO WHERE near the possibilities of creation from mankind,Maybe one day we could travel to the end of the universe (if it has a end) discover all the planets,turn one matter to another(not talking about fire etc...),replace organs and cells easily,cure all diseases,get into a black hole without getting ripped apart,walk on the sun,walk on a neutron star the possibilities and endless and just keep going...

 

Computers are smarter than humans already...decoding,saving archives without any loss of quality for years and years and years...we are not even close to a computer as far as being smart,we dont create,we upgrade,from 120nm CPU'S we are already at 7nm and probably will reach 1nm,the brain is a very different computer that cant be created,the only reason why the brain is more superior than other computers since it is VERY different than computers and works in another way,a way that cant be created

You do realized that quantum computers are really only able to speed up certain aspects of math right? They will never take the place of classical computers like what we use now because they are actually only useful in specialized cases.

 

Also quantum computers will never be able to create things, that is artificial intelligence which is entirely separate from quantum computing.

 

You're very sloppy in that you're all over the place within even that comment. At the top you say that "computers aren't superior" in the beginning and then at the end turn around and say "computers are smarter than humans". You really need to pick a side bro.

[Dash Lambda]

...

... Oh for the love of sanity...

 

Computers and the human brain are fundamentally different and cannot be compared by performance or intelligence metrics. You may as well be comparing your lungs to an air tank.

 

And, as a side note, I understand that the "we don't use our whole brain" thing is a common misconception, but... How?

Do people just not think about it? How would that even work?

[vorticalbox]

1 hour ago, Dash Lambda said:

...

... Oh for the love of sanity...

 

Computers and the human brain are fundamentally different and cannot be compared by performance or intelligence metrics. You may as well be comparing your lungs to an air tank.

 

And, as a side note, I understand that the "we don't use our whole brain" thing is a common misconception, but... How?

Do people just not think about it? How would that even work?

I believe it came from the fact we never use all of our brains at the same time. We have a network firing off in patterns.

[Clanscorpia]

4 hours ago, The Realist said:

Superior to know we can trust technology %100,Superior to quantum computing,Superior to biological computing,just face it we are NO WHERE NEAR SUPERIOR,cameras are not superior,computers are not superior,phones are not superior today's technology that normal people can buy is NO WHERE near the possibilities of creation from mankind,Maybe one day we could travel to the end of the universe (if it has a end) discover all the planets,turn one matter to another(not talking about fire etc...),replace organs and cells easily,cure all diseases,get into a black hole without getting ripped apart,walk on the sun,walk on a neutron star the possibilities and endless and just keep going...

 

Computers are smarter than humans already...decoding,saving archives without any loss of quality for years and years and years...we are not even close to a computer as far as being smart,we dont create,we upgrade,from 120nm CPU'S we are already at 7nm and probably will reach 1nm,the brain is a very different computer that cant be created,the only reason why the brain is more superior than other computers since it is VERY different than computers and works in another way,a way that cant be created

We cant go to the end of the universe unless quantum theory is correct and we enter into different quantum planes. That would be interesting. We are smarter then computer. We always will. Because of one thing. We have a conscience. We can think for ourselves. The moment a computer becomes conscience, is it still a computer? Computer do things we tell them to do. they are a tool. But a computer that can think for itself? I dont call that a computer anymore. We can't reach 1 nm. below 7nm, electrons jump between transistors making 0s 1s. Computers by definition, can never be better than humans.

[Dash Lambda]

22 minutes ago, vorticalbox said:

I believe it came from the fact we never use all of our brains at the same time. We have a network firing off in patterns.

I guess, but... To have that idea kind of implies you understand that the inactive neurons aren't 'unused computing power' of some sort, right?

6 minutes ago, Clanscorpia said:

We cant go to the end of the universe unless quantum theory is correct and we enter into different quantum planes. That would be interesting. We are smarter then computer. We always will. Because of one thing. We have a conscience. We can think for ourselves. The moment a computer becomes conscience, is it still a computer? Computer do things we tell them to do. they are a tool. But a computer that can think for itself? I dont call that a computer anymore. We can't reach 1 nm. below 7nm, electrons jump between transistors making 0s 1s. Computers by definition, can never be better than humans.

"-Unless quantum theory is correct and we enter into different quantum planes."

... I'l give you the benefit of the doubt. Can you explain what you mean?

 

I think your definition of a computer is a little flawed. A computer is a machine which can process and store information, saying nothing of its software.

If we start building artificial brains, then maybe, depending on the exact nature of them, we might be able to make a distinction. Currently, though, AI is a matter of programming, and the hardware it runs on (or is being researched on, since we don't yet have sapient AI) is traditional computer hardware.

 

Also, I'd like to point out, as with my previous post (which you may or may not have read), the 'intelligence' of a computer and a human brain cannot be compared. We are not "smarter" than computers, but rather we are different.

 

Oh, and I think the word you're looking for is "consciousness." 

[Webkitnote]

We already lost against binary computers, what would make you think that quantum computer which is supposed to be superior to binary computer, would lose against human brain?

[Clanscorpia]

12 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

I guess, but... To have that idea kind of implies you understand that the inactive neurons aren't 'unused computing power' of some sort, right?

"-Unless quantum theory is correct and we enter into different quantum planes."

... I'l give you the benefit of the doubt. Can you explain what you mean?

 

I think your definition of a computer is a little flawed. A computer is a machine which can process and store information, saying nothing of its software.

If we start building artificial brains, then maybe, depending on the exact nature of them, we might be able to make a distinction. Currently, though, AI is a matter of programming, and the hardware it runs on (or is being researched on, since we don't yet have sapient AI) is traditional computer hardware.

 

Also, I'd like to point out, as with my previous post (which you may or may not have read), the 'intelligence' of a computer and a human brain cannot be compared. We are not "smarter" than computers, but rather we are different.

 

Oh, and I think the word you're looking for is "consciousness." 

Damn Autocorrect. Quantum theory states that there is multiple "quantum planes" where every possible outcome takes place. If we can travel through those we may be able to go faster then light and "teleport". Based on galaxy movement, we'll never be able to leave our supercluster unless we can go faster than light, and even then it would take millions of years to catch up.

[DXMember]

the pool answers are limiting...

 

1. - at what task? Quantum Computers are really shit at precision math though...

2. - in 13th century AD, how do you answer a question of what comes after books?

3. - Have you seen the movie "Lucy", or the movie "Limitless"? That's a good take, assuming the ten percent brain myth - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_of_the_brain_myth

[manikyath]

20 hours ago, The Realist said:

Proof?

the brain isnt a "cpu with usage percentage"

 

imagine the brain as a computer with seperate elements for processing incoming video, processing sensor data, powering actuators, output audio, etc.

 

whenever we do any of these, the part required for them is *working* there's no percentage, the only "usage" we can deviate is how efficiently it processes. (a noisy room will require more to figure out what somene said than a noise-free enviroment)

 

and when we're not doing something that part of the brain goes "idle" because there's nothing for it to do. (when you close your eyes, the part that processes your eyesight "gets less excited" as doctors call it.)

[Dash Lambda]

2 minutes ago, Clanscorpia said:

Damn Autocorrect. Quantum theory states that there is multiple "quantum planes" where every possible outcome takes place. If we can travel through those we may be able to go faster then light and "teleport". Based on galaxy movement, we'll never be able to leave our supercluster unless we can go faster than light, and even then it would take millions of years to catch up.

I believe you're mixing up higher spacial dimensions and the Many-Worlds-Interpretation. I've actually never even heard of "quantum planes" in relation to either, and still haven't after searching a bit, so I'm kind'a curious where you're quoting that from.

 

Also, saying that we can travel faster than light removes the upper bound on the velocity we can achieve, so there's no basis to say it would take "million of years" to travel any distance. If that was "twice the speed of light", or "ten times the speed of light", then sure... But "faster than light" allows for everything up to and including infinite velocity.

[Clanscorpia]

1 minute ago, Dash Lambda said:

I believe you're mixing up higher spacial dimensions and the Many-Worlds-Interpretation. I've actually never even heard of "quantum planes" in relation to either, and still haven't after searching a bit, so I'm kind'a curious where you're quoting that from.

 

Also, saying that we can travel faster than light removes the upper bound on the velocity we can achieve, so there's no basis to say it would take "million of years" to travel any distance. If that was "twice the speed of light", or "ten times the speed of light", then sure... But "faster than light" allows for everything up to and including infinite velocity.

We aren;t going to achieve infinite velocity though. Keep it reasonable.

[Clanscorpia]

And quantum planes are a part of quantum physics' interpretation. 

[Dash Lambda]

1 minute ago, Clanscorpia said:

We aren;t going to achieve infinite velocity though. Keep it reasonable.

... We're talking about superluminal travel and macro-scale exploitation of quantum phenomena.

[Bsmith]

I will mostly add my 10 cents of thoughts to the first point of this poll.

 

AQC(Advanced Quantum Computers) can be far outreach the human brain depending on the area, it will beat us when it comes to encryption, but we will probably outrun it when it comes to creative things like designing new systems or the arts.
But AQC might be able to gain alot of traction through the many worlds interpretation, if they really are able to use that in their advance.

[Dash Lambda]

2 minutes ago, Clanscorpia said:

And quantum planes are a part of quantum physics' interpretation. 

Please try to reply in one post, I hate having to do two of these.

Anyway...

Which one? -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

[DXMember]

21 hours ago, The Realist said:

Proof?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_of_the_brain_myth#Analysis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2010_season)#Brain_Drain

[Clanscorpia]

3 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

Please try to reply in one post, I hate having to do two of these.

Anyway...

Which one? -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

Sorry it was the Many World interpretation. I just always read it referred to as planes

[Dash Lambda]

1 minute ago, Clanscorpia said:

Sorry it was the Many World interpretation. I just always read it referred to as planes

But... Where?

A plane, in mathematics, is a 2-dimensional manifold. The only place I can imagine hypothetical alternate universes being called "quantum planes" is sci-fi.

The MWI isn't even necessary related to higher spacial dimensions, nor superluminal travel, nor large-scale teleportation...

[Clanscorpia]

1 minute ago, Dash Lambda said:

But... Where?

A plane, in mathematics, is a 2-dimensional manifold. The only place I can imagine hypothetical alternate universes being called "quantum planes" is sci-fi.

The MWI isn't even necessary related to higher spacial dimensions, nor superluminal travel, nor large-scale teleportation...

Linguistically I've heard a plane be a spacial area. And I've read that people theorize being able to slip in and out of them and then travelling in the other plane. Most of this is read at 11:00 though. My memory is quite foggy that late.

[Dash Lambda]

1 minute ago, Clanscorpia said:

Linguistically I've heard a plane be a spacial area. And I've read that people theorize being able to slip in and out of them and then travelling in the other plane. Most of this is read at 11:00 though. My memory is quite foggy that late.

You're obviously not a mathematician, because an "area" relates to two-dimensional spaces.

Either way, when you start talking about higher level mathematics, it's best to drop colloquial usage.

 

Also, transportation via alternate universes is a purely hypothetical and usually fictional concept. Though, exploiting higher spacial dimensions for travel is, I think, an idea with some mathematical background... Though that part of quantum mechanics is still largely undetermined.

[Clanscorpia]

7 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

You're obviously not a mathematician, because an "area" relates to two-dimensional spaces.

Either way, when you start talking about higher level mathematics, it's best to drop colloquial usage.

 

Also, transportation via alternate universes is a purely hypothetical and usually fictional concept. Though, exploiting higher spacial dimensions for travel is, I think, an idea with some mathematical background... Though that part of quantum mechanics is still largely undetermined.

I know Im not a mathematician, Im 13 and Im not trying to act like one. And I never said it was real, I said it was a theory 

[Sauron]

21 hours ago, The Realist said:

Proof?

common sense.

 

as for "what is more powerful", it's almost impossible to measure, since some tasks depend heavily on the programming.

[Centurius]

3 hours ago, Dash Lambda said:

...

... Oh for the love of sanity...

 

Computers and the human brain are fundamentally different and cannot be compared by performance or intelligence metrics. You may as well be comparing your lungs to an air tank.

 

And, as a side note, I understand that the "we don't use our whole brain" thing is a common misconception, but... How?

Do people just not think about it? How would that even work?

Sounds good in movies and to people who don't understand our intelligence is based on the collective work of thousands of generations rather than the brain unlocking stuff over time.

[Dash Lambda]

2 minutes ago, Clanscorpia said:

I know Im not a mathematician, Im 13 and Im not trying to act like one. And I never said it was real, I said it was a theory 

Sorry, I meant that in a more jovial tone, not as a critical remark. I'm not trying to rag on you~

Though, however annoying I may become, I am still trying to fix errors, so I've gotta say: A theory, in science, is a technical model or explanation that is heavily substantiated and rigorous. A hypothesis has to be quite a bit more than a simple idea to be called a "theory."

[Clanscorpia]

4 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

Sorry, I meant that in a more jovial tone, not as a critical remark. I'm not trying to rag on you~

Though, however annoying I may become, I am still trying to fix errors, so I've gotta say: A theory, in science, is a technical model or explanation that is heavily substantiated and rigorous. A hypothesis has to be quite a bit more than a simple idea to be called a "theory."

This is why I dont read wikipedia at 11:00 at night  I trust what your saying  I always just read "Quantum Theory" as the section so I assumed everything in it was part of the theory of it