Functionality of the Human Brain Compared to Functionality of Basic Computer Operation

Originally posted by NE1911
That's very relative and I'm sure you already understand what I mean. In essence, you can replace negative beliefs that serve as limitations with positive beliefs that allow your persona to fully develop.

Oh I completely agree with the notion of positive thinking but the point I am making is this:

The OP is comparing a human brain with a computer. Maybe it would have been a good idea to differentiate between the computational power of our conscious and our unconscious mind because comparing those two is like comparing an abacus with a super computer.

Your argumentation of positive beliefs comes from the abacus part of your brain and influences only itself and not the entire brain.

Peace

reply to post by operation mindcrime

comparing those two is like comparing an abacus with a super computer.

Not to be intrusive within the underlying discussion you two have going, I just wanted to reply to that portion of your post with this...

For now...

Originally posted by UberL33t
reply to post by operation mindcrime

 

comparing those two is like comparing an abacus with a super computer.

Not to be intrusive within the underlying discussion you two have going, I just wanted to reply to that portion of your post with this...

For now...

For ever........or are you saying that this is a temporary issue that will sort itself out with time??

I know it's silly but let's try and convert the computational force of our mind (conscious and unconscious) into the amount of bits per second both can process. Reading is a perfect example of a conscious process, how many letters can you read in a second?.....Turns out that the average human clocks in at about 45 bits per second, when reading out loud this drops to 30 bps and when counting things it is reduced to a mere 4 bps.(just count the letters in the word supercalifragilisticexpealidocious, 4 per second that's the best you can do). But if we were to give the conscious mind a bit-rate, it's maximum capacity would be around 60 bits per second.

The unconscious mind on the other hand........... Scientists have looked at the amount of receptor cells we have and the amount of braincells occupied with processing this information. They came to the conclusion that the total processing capacity of the unconscious mind clocks in at around 11,2 million bits per second.

It would imply that our unconscious mind is 200.000 faster at processing information.

I know it's a silly way of looking at things but it does illustrate the enormous difference between the conscious and the unconscious mind.

I am thankful though that when I watch television I am only aware of one or two images on the screen instead of being aware of all the individual pixels making up the image. Imagine being aware of all the things we are not aware of.........it would drive one insane instantly.......so that's why I said "for ever".

Peace

reply to post by operation mindcrime


I can see your view if you are looking from a "here and now" approach. The only problem I have is the "forever" part. "Forever", is an inconceivable amount of time. "Forever" negates advancement. It's likened to a caveman (not comparing you mind you, using only as a reference) sitting around the fire and telling everyone that this will be the only form of heat and the wood that they are using will be the only form of fuel that they will have access to "forever". "Forever" doesn't allow for a species to evolve, to me "forever" is closed-minded in this regard.

Again, I ponder my imagination as to what we will have advanced to in only 500 years from now, which is not even close to "forever". So pardon me in advance for not seeing your view in it's entirety. I personally think that is a "here and now" way to look at it and negates any possible scenarios of what could virtually become of us or of the advancements that we make to computers as it were.

reply to post by UberL33t



I understand your argument that with time the conscious mind will advance, i.e. people should be getting "relatively" smarter and smarter. But to advance to the point that the conscious mind has the same processing power as the unconscious mind would be like saying: " I know I can't break the sound barrier with my bike but if I try hard enough eventually I will."

The conscious mind processes information serial, the unconscious mind parallel. They operate on different technologies. It won't happen and it is probably not what we should be aiming for. If anything, it is the connection between those two that could improve.

The information flow appears to be a one-way street, where the unconscious mind is constantly providing the conscious mind with information. What happens when you drive up that street in the wrong way??

Savant syndrome

Maybe we shouldn't be trying to become "smart" (we already are) but instead improve the ability to access the unconscious consciously........

Now I need a cup of coffee because it is way to early in the morning for this stuff...

Peace

reply to post by operation mindcrime


@ way too early, I just read your reply and I think I as well have been up all but 10 mins. As I was reading your reply, I'm thinking "man, I need to wake up before I attempt my reply". So this too will be an early morning response in return.

That said, your reply brought up another thread I recently replied to, that for all intents and purposes gave me the idea for this thread and is what I think I was ultimately trying to convey, but your reply above gives me a way to explain it now so thank you for that for what it is worth. (I will provide the link to my initial reply to that thread but by all means read as much of the OP and other replies as you wish):

Brain vs. Mind: Are they indeed two separate entities? - My reply (page 2)

Welcome back! I most definitely believe they are currently and entirely two separate entities. Which begs many questions. Are we just in an early state of evolution and until we're able to make the two (conscious and sub-conscious) work as one entity will we remain unable to indeed equal or unify their apparent separate qualities or will we eventually evolve to make them one?

You've heard the phrase we only use 10%, 20%, whatever it is (I've also heard that even that is bullocks and we use all of it), of our brain's capacity and/or ability right? This I think ties into the Savant arena that you mentioned. Wherein, I believe that normal (pardon the subjective term) people whose synapses are firing accordingly are not able to achieve savant-ism if you will.

Savant's I feel are otherwise lacking an otherwise normal functionality in the brain so to compensate the brain activates (so to speak) otherwise dormant sections that a normal person's brain would otherwise have no need to as it is all firing according to the current level of evolution.

There are tons of subjects and news articles regarding people with "other than worldly" or "miraculous" brain abilities depending on one's belief. To name a few, Telekinesis, Self-healing, Astral Projection, Psychic ability, Memorization, you get the picture. A good example of proof of that ability is blind people that have better than average hearing, because the brain compensates and the remaining available senses are amplified.

So this leads me to believe, we all have it up there, however, our current level of evolution does not thwart us the ability to control it or have access to it at all. It's locked up at this venture, and probably for good reason because we aren't ready, or that's just not how life works in that an advanced species has to effectively learn and grow into what is the ultimate being. We are infants in that regard.

I do however think this is the overall goal in regards to what life is truly about. It is all about energy, more so and seemingly, cyclical energy which is beginning to make a lot of sense in my view. I feel that if we had full control of the energy that we are both conscious and sub, we would not require a body to house it, or a brain to process it. One day, we may be the life givers and perhaps that is how the Universe is evolving and this is just one phase of the slow but sure goal to filling the Universe with life and energy.

To me, it is just as plausible as any other theory on the market

Originally posted by operation mindcrime

Originally posted by UberL33t
reply to post by operation mindcrime

 

comparing those two is like comparing an abacus with a super computer.

Not to be intrusive within the underlying discussion you two have going, I just wanted to reply to that portion of your post with this...

For now...

For ever........or are you saying that this is a temporary issue that will sort itself out with time??

I know it's silly but let's try and convert the computational force of our mind (conscious and unconscious) into the amount of bits per second both can process. Reading is a perfect example of a conscious process, how many letters can you read in a second?.....Turns out that the average human clocks in at about 45 bits per second, when reading out loud this drops to 30 bps and when counting things it is reduced to a mere 4 bps.(just count the letters in the word supercalifragilisticexpealidocious, 4 per second that's the best you can do). But if we were to give the conscious mind a bit-rate, it's maximum capacity would be around 60 bits per second.

No, that's not correct in the slightest. How many characters one can read per second is NOT any form of indication of "bit rate" (not that such a term applies to the mind, but what the heck).

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by operation mindcrime

Originally posted by UberL33t
reply to post by operation mindcrime

 

comparing those two is like comparing an abacus with a super computer.

Not to be intrusive within the underlying discussion you two have going, I just wanted to reply to that portion of your post with this...

For now...

For ever........or are you saying that this is a temporary issue that will sort itself out with time??

I know it's silly but let's try and convert the computational force of our mind (conscious and unconscious) into the amount of bits per second both can process. Reading is a perfect example of a conscious process, how many letters can you read in a second?.....Turns out that the average human clocks in at about 45 bits per second, when reading out loud this drops to 30 bps and when counting things it is reduced to a mere 4 bps.(just count the letters in the word supercalifragilisticexpealidocious, 4 per second that's the best you can do). But if we were to give the conscious mind a bit-rate, it's maximum capacity would be around 60 bits per second.

No, that's not correct in the slightest. How many characters one can read per second is NOT any form of indication of "bit rate" (not that such a term applies to the mind, but what the heck).

Sighhhhhhhh........

I just knew this would return to bite me in the *** but what the heck.....

As I pointed out it is a bit silly to attempt and convert to a bitrate but here's the theory behind it:

A bit is the smallest piece of information, right. Either "1" or "0". Let's take the alphabet, every letter in the first halve of the alphabet will be assigned as "0" and every letter in the second part will be assigned as "1". Now every letter in the first halve of the first halve will be assigned as "0" and every letter in the second halve of the first halve will be assigned "1".....you get the idea. Eventually you will be able to express every letter in the alphabet using 5 bits.

The letter A would become 00000 and B is 00001 and Z would become 11111.....simple right? To express a five letter word one would need 25 bits. (of course some combinations will not be possible because we know that certain letters are never followed by certain other letters like a P following a Q).

Now try to count the letters in the word supercalifragilisticexpealidocious, 4 per second that's the best you can do, i.e. 4 x 5 = 20 bps.

Peace

reply to post by john_bmth


I am sure there is some form of measure to what the definition of bit-rate implies to in regards to the human brain. However, I think we are only scratching at the surface of this as the intricacies of it at this venture are too complex for science to fully grasp. None the less, one day this may be measurable down to the bit-rate so to speak and you never know, perhaps upgradable.

reply to post by operation mindcrime


Case in point ....way too intricate to define at this venture.

ETA: Although, a very in tuned approach at making sense of how a bit can be associated. Very interesting way to break it down for sure.

Originally posted by UberL33t
reply to post by john_bmth

 

I am sure there is some form of measure to what the definition of bit-rate implies to in regards to the human brain. However, I think we are only scratching at the surface of this as the intricacies of it at this venture are too complex for science to fully grasp. None the less, one day this may be measurable down to the bit-rate so to speak and you never know, perhaps upgradable.

Bit-rate is a human construct that has a very specific meaning in the field of computing. It's not some natural phenomenon that can be extrapolated to other natural contexts. Furthermore, the idea that reading is an example of "conscious exercise" is completely untrue. You don't need to consciously engage in a pattern recognition process to manually figure out each shape and then check it with known shapes in your memory to deduce that a given shape is in fact a known character form the alphabet. If anything, it's nearly a completely unconsciousness exercise.

To then jump to the conclusion that "oh, the average human can read x characters a second thus the conscious mind has a bit rate of y bps" is again utter nonsense. The human mind can do tasks such as pattern recognition with complete ease, something even the greatest supercomputer in the world would struggle with (if at all). Why? Partly because it's a algorithmic issue but more importantly because the way the human mind operates and the way computers operate are completely different, in the same way that a computer will tirelessly do arithmetic operations billions of times a second whilst the human mind will slow down to a crawl. Reading words is not in any shape or form analogous to the data throughput of a given computing system as the tasks are not at all similar. If anything, reading words is stupendously more complex than the measurement of bit rate of a given system as the former requires a mind-boggling amount of processing power (again, there we go with the analogues).

And even then... let's assume that the human mind and computers were analogous (they're not)... how many characters read per second still wouldn't make sense because the binary representation of a character is an arbitrary human construct and there are many representations to chose from. Is it an ASCII character (7 bits)? UTF-8 (8 bits)? UTF-16 (16 bits)? UTF-32 (32 bits)? See how this test of "bit rate" is starting to make less and less sense?

I can't go into too much detail or name names because the research has not been published yet, but I know of at least one university and I should imagine that there is more, that are trying to develop a computer system based upon biological systems. The group that I am aware of, are attempting to replicate the 'robustness' of biology in programming language and hardware design, in that, using the OPs example, a person can lose a significant part of their brain, but over time (in some cases) the brain will adapt and develop new pathways, thus restoring function. Cut out a chunk out of a motherboard and it is effectively dead. The group are looking at ways to build in these same repair and/or reroute functions common to biological engineering.

Sorry to be vague, but you know...thought it might still be of interest.

reply to post by BadPenny


Wow, it is indeed of interest. I can understand the secrecy. However it would be my respectful request and at your ability to keep us updated to the best of your capacity on findings. As far as the research, is it in it's inception? Or is it on the tail end? More so, if one were to say do a search, would there be any scholarly postings or write-ups that have been released?

Thank you for your input, I am most definitely intrigued to say the least.

reply to post by john_bmth


While I appreciate the technical aspect of your reply.

Bit-rate is a human construct that has a very specific meaning in the field of computing. It's not some natural phenomenon that can be extrapolated to other natural contexts.

The fact of the matter however, information is being exchanged via electrical signals, this is known. Therein, it should effectively be able to be measured whether it's a bit or otherwise.

This thread is theory based, and while I again appreciate your technical descriptions of what is now common knowledge. This thread is not debating what is the current mind-set or the definitions of what those mind-sets are. What I merely wanted to convey is the definitive similarities in the way information between the two is computed and exchanged.

So your claim of absurdity, imo, inhibits the possibility of perhaps discussing and perhaps discovering information and/or ideas that could effectively spark said discovery(ies).

Respectfully,
UberL33t

ETA: I starred your post regardless, and I thank you for contributing to the thread, please continue to do so as it makes room for debate and allows for clarification to someone else that may be reading it.

Originally posted by UberL33t
reply to post by BadPenny

 

Wow, it is indeed of interest. I can understand the secrecy. However it would be my respectful request and at your ability to keep us updated to the best of your capacity on findings. As far as the research, is it in it's inception? Or is it on the tail end? More so, if one were to say do a search, would there be any scholarly postings or write-ups that have been released?

Thank you for your input, I am most definitely intrigued to say the least.

These are two of the guys that are involved in the working group. I only heard about the work from a in-house talk, so I am not sure what is in the public domain at the moment, and I am not sure that my understanding would be up to explaining it anyway.

www-users.cs.york.ac.uk...

www.elec.york.ac.uk...

reply to post by UberL33t

The human brain and conventional computers are not analogous. You can theorize and speculate all you wish, but such speculation is misguided, as on a fundamental level they are completely different.

reply to post by john_bmth


Granted, however, a true skeptic, will also leave room for as of yet un-discoverd variables. I could be wrong, but I think you would at least grant that in return for the over-all "ooomph" (for lack of a better term) of this thread. I have no problem with leaving it at the "agree to disagree" approach of the two.

reply to post by BadPenny


Thank you, my time is rationed at the moment. When I have the time I will peruse the links you posted. If the explanations within are more technical, I will do my best to perhaps post here in laymen terms. Then again, I have a limit as well, so I too may be perplexed by the information. Again thank you for the information and contribution to this thread, it is appreciated immensely.