Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


human intelligence


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
97 replies to this topic

#81 Tournicoti   Prime Members   -  Reputation: 682

Like
-4Likes
Like

Posted 07 February 2014 - 04:55 AM

 

A computer can perform calculations faster than MOST human brains... however there are people who have beaten computers at calculating ridiculous numeric calculations


That statement is absurd. Shakuntala Devi took 28 seconds to compute 7686369774870 * 2465099745779. That's quite a feat, no doubt. It would be hard for me to measure how long it takes my laptop to make that computation, but the order of magnitude is 0.00000001 seconds.

 

Thank you Alvaro, I didn't realize my 20 cents calculator was more intelligent than me, just because it can perform calculations I can't do myself. You seem to have a very good, clever and nice idea about what intelligence is.

 

We are facing the Human VS Nature Dunning-Kruger effect ... sad.png

Are you high, or asleep ?


Edited by Tournicoti, 07 February 2014 - 05:39 AM.


Sponsor:

#82 Álvaro   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 11859

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 07 February 2014 - 05:40 AM

A computer can perform calculations faster than MOST human brains... however there are people who have beaten computers at calculating ridiculous numeric calculations


That statement is absurd. Shakuntala Devi took 28 seconds to compute 7686369774870 * 2465099745779. That's quite a feat, no doubt. It would be hard for me to measure how long it takes my laptop to make that computation, but the order of magnitude is 0.00000001 seconds.

Thank you Alvaro, I didn't realize my 20 cents calculator was more intelligent than me, just because it can perform calculations I can't do myself. You seem to have a very good, clever and nice idea about what intelligence is.


Clearly I was making the argument that calculators are more intelligent than people because they can multiply faster. Good reading comprehension!

#83 Tournicoti   Prime Members   -  Reputation: 682

Like
-2Likes
Like

Posted 07 February 2014 - 05:53 AM

 

 

 

A computer can perform calculations faster than MOST human brains... however there are people who have beaten computers at calculating ridiculous numeric calculations


That statement is absurd. Shakuntala Devi took 28 seconds to compute 7686369774870 * 2465099745779. That's quite a feat, no doubt. It would be hard for me to measure how long it takes my laptop to make that computation, but the order of magnitude is 0.00000001 seconds.

 

Thank you Alvaro, I didn't realize my 20 cents calculator was more intelligent than me, just because it can perform calculations I can't do myself. You seem to have a very good, clever and nice idea about what intelligence is.

 


Clearly I was making the argument that calculators are more intelligent than people because they can multiply faster. Good reading comprehension!

 

I really don't want to be mean with you, you give so much to  this community ... I sincerely mean it .... sad.png

This discussion makes me very sad and crazy ...

But Intelligence has nothing to do with the ability to perform fastly some computation... This is the ability to evolve given stimuli (inputs) ... the ability to learn !


Edited by Tournicoti, 07 February 2014 - 06:09 AM.


#84 Olof Hedman   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2642

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 07 February 2014 - 07:26 AM


But Intelligence has nothing to do with the ability to perform fastly some computation... 

 

Good thing then no-one tried to make that argument.

All alvaro did was to (rightly) call out on the absurd claim that some humans can perform calculations faster then computers.

After all, that was what computers was invented for, to offload calculation work from human brains, and to do it faster and more error free


Edited by Olof Hedman, 07 February 2014 - 07:35 AM.


#85 Tutorial Doctor   Members   -  Reputation: 1389

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 07 February 2014 - 12:10 PM

I don think it's absurd to say humans can perform calculations faster than computers

Humans are constantly making calculations unconsciously. To maintain balance, the brain is constantly calculating, and fast also.

Also, to gauge distance between objects, the brain has to process information quickly. Right before a car wreck, the brain has to make many calculations also.

Look up at how many calculations the most advanced walking robot has to make, and marvel at how easy a 2 year old makes it look.

Even moving your pinky finger into a curved position requires a bunch of calculations, and human motion mechanics don't work like inverse kinematics.

They call me the Tutorial Doctor.


#86 samoth   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4496

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 07 February 2014 - 01:00 PM

Actually the brain performs computations pathetically slow, being clocked at roughly 12-15Hz in rest and 30-50Hz under heavy load and having a "wire speed" of roughly 100-120 m/s (as compared to 3GHz and 300,000km/s in a computer).

 

However, the brain is an incredibly massive parallel processor with an equally complex "wiring", and with dedicated "special hardware" attached, which takes care of everyday survival tasks such as controlling circulation and respiration, or doing "trivial" stuff like standing on one foot with your eyes closed (without falling).



#87 Nathan2222_old   Members   -  Reputation: -400

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 07 February 2014 - 03:12 PM

Actually the brain performs computations pathetically slow, being clocked at roughly 12-15Hz in rest and 30-50Hz under heavy load and having a "wire speed" of roughly 100-120 m/s (as compared to 3GHz and 300,000km/s in a computer).

Could you post a link to where you saw this because i'm certain that i read the brain is like an 18000MHz or more processor and the reason it can't perform certain mathematical calculations very fast is because of the body systems it manages.

*edit* make that the brain is over a 1,680,000 MHz processor and does up to/more than 100,000,000 MIPS so there is no way the brain is nearly that slow.

UNREAL ENGINE 4:
Total LOC: ~3M Lines
Total Languages: ~32
smile.png
--
GREAT QUOTES:
I can do ALL things through Christ - Jesus Christ
--
Logic will get you from A-Z, imagination gets you everywhere - Albert Einstein
--
The problems of the world cannot be solved by skeptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. - John F. Kennedy


#88 Nypyren   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3674

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 07 February 2014 - 03:44 PM

 

Actually the brain performs computations pathetically slow, being clocked at roughly 12-15Hz in rest and 30-50Hz under heavy load and having a "wire speed" of roughly 100-120 m/s (as compared to 3GHz and 300,000km/s in a computer).

Could you post a link to where you saw this because i'm certain that i read the brain is like an 18000MHz or more processor and the reason it can't perform certain mathematical calculations very fast is because of the body systems it manages.

*edit* make that the brain is over a 1,680,000 MHz processor and does up to/more than 100,000,000 MIPS so there is no way the brain is nearly that slow.

 


Are you the kind of person that considers a 6 core processor with each core running at 3 GHz to be the same as a single 18 GHz core?


Edited by Nypyren, 07 February 2014 - 03:44 PM.


#89 Hodgman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 27543

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 07 February 2014 - 04:03 PM

Actually the GPU performs computations pathetically slow, visible changes being clocked at roughly 30-50Hz.
 
However, the GPU is an incredibly massive parallel processor with an equally complex "wiring", and with dedicated "special hardware" attached, which takes care of everyday fixed function tasks such as decoding MPEG and DXT, or doing "trivial" stuff like sending VGA signals.

^^edited for the funs. When playing a game, you've got >33ms of latency on your frames, which appear at low Hz. Just like a brain -- though this configuration of computing probably evolved this way exactly because graphics output is brain input, I guess...

Either way, looking at the Hz of 1-a few dozen processin cores, VS the Hz of a trillion neurons isn't a very meaningful comparison.
(Like above, where we don't say that a 2x3GHz CPU is a 6GHz CPU, and we know that our 800MHZ GPU is way more powerful than our 3GHz CPUs)

#90 samoth   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4496

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 07 February 2014 - 04:09 PM

 

Could you post a link to where you saw this because i'm certain that i read the brain is like an 18000MHz or more processor and the reason it can't perform certain mathematical calculations very fast is because of the body systems it manages.

Well, the signals that you can capture with an EEG are typically 12-15 Hz ("beta" waves)  when awake and idle and 30+ ("gamma" waves) when heftily troubled, During sleep it's around 4-5 Hz or lower, but that's not surprising.

 

What you can capture with an EEG are not the countless "noise" impulses of single neurons firing (these happen all the time, but they sum up to zero in the reading, since they're vectors of equal size pointing in semi-random directions), but great wavefronts running over the brain in a coordinated manner. One such wavefront produces one "wave" in the EEG. In other words, the time between two waves is one round trip time. I think it's fair to consider this the "frequency" of the brain.

Even though, of course, the brain does not really have a notion of frequency like a computer (there is no quartz or such!).

 

But still 50Hz times multiplied with 1014 is a darn big number of operations (or whatever the real number is, most estimates seem to be around 1013 to 1015).



#91 Tutorial Doctor   Members   -  Reputation: 1389

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 07 February 2014 - 07:56 PM

Is there a conversion factor somewhere that converts brain prcocessing speed to computer processor speed? Because there are all sorts of factors involved.

But as I said, computers can do things faster, but not better (overall). I'll give that they can do some things better, but the human brain is far more complex and capable.

They call me the Tutorial Doctor.


#92 Bregma   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4749

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 07 February 2014 - 08:27 PM

I love this sophomoric discussion that is a continuation of courses I took in university 30 years ago.  Nothings changed, except (1) there is no obvious PhD in phliosophy leading the discussion and (2) no one has quoted the classical works on the subject yet (Plato, Aquinas, Kant, Hume, Denning, Hofstadter, Turing).

 

Here's an interesting tidbit for those trying to guess what MHz our cerebral cortex runs at.  Before electronic digital computer became commonplace and our paradigm for congnizant processing, the paradigm was the most complex systems at the time: clockwork.  People assumed the future was going to be run by clockwork (tik tok men).  Giant mechanical minds, sprung from Babbage's engines, would rule all mankind.

 

Why do you think the mind is anything like a digital computer?


Stephen M. Webb
Professional Free Software Developer

#93 IADaveMark   Moderators   -  Reputation: 2303

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 09 February 2014 - 08:57 AM

OMG... this is still going on...

 

As for comparing calculation speed, go look up NP-Hard. Humans do better on NP-Hard problems because we get close enough. We estimate and parse to a point. We don't try to solve the optimal solution to the problem like a computer would tend to algorithmicaly do.

 

We also understand the concept of futility... we simply give up after a while.

 

Well... at least people not in this thread do.


Dave Mark - President and Lead Designer of Intrinsic Algorithm LLC

Professional consultant on game AI, mathematical modeling, simulation modeling
Co-advisor of the GDC AI Summit
Co-founder of the AI Game Programmers Guild
Author of the book, Behavioral Mathematics for Game AI

Blogs I write:
IA News - What's happening at IA | IA on AI - AI news and notes | Post-Play'em - Observations on AI of games I play

"Reducing the world to mathematical equations!"

#94 Pink Horror   Members   -  Reputation: 1084

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 February 2014 - 08:48 PM


The first point I am trying to make is that Both computers and Brains are physical objects, each of them are powered by electricity and make calculations based on the flow of that electricity through their components. At a fundamental level it is impossible that a synthetic brain can not be created as their is no magical, or impossible element a brain possesses that can not be simulated.

 

Hey, some of us believe in magic brains.



#95 Nypyren   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3674

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 February 2014 - 09:21 PM

OMG... this is still going on...

We also understand the concept of futility...


If you're trying to imply that this discussion is futile, I agree.

If you're trying to imply that the goal of researching and developing more sophisticated AI is futile, I do not agree.

Edited by Nypyren, 11 February 2014 - 09:24 PM.


#96 Akalabeth   Members   -  Reputation: 677

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 14 February 2014 - 08:37 AM

I reckon almost all of you started from a point that brings to nowhere. Do you know that Artificial Intelligence scientists, researchers, companies and universities are trying to arrive to replicate the human intelligence from decades? The fact that no one reached his goal is so simple that you could probably not imagine.

 

First of all, the meaning of "intelligence", the way with which we use to mean that term, is completely wrong. We use the old concept of intelligence inherited from classic philosophy, that thought intelligence was only relative to the faculty to use logic. Unfortunately (for all the people who followed this road), intelligence is something more complex than logic.

 

I exort you, if you really want to know how the real things are, to make some interesting reading on some of the discoveries of the modern psychology. Take a look, for example, to Antonio Damasio. He is one of the most important living scientists who have studied the behavior of the human brain. In 1995 he wrote "Descartes 'Error", with which "flips the cultural tradition that has always devalued emotions because could disrupt the serenity of reason and shown that, on the contrary, they are essential for good functioning of the mind: if a man loses emotional capacity is not able to be reasonable."

Damasio says his theories through scientific evidence. In fact, he makes reference to a patient's clinical study (patient's name: Gage), as a result of an accident at work. Gage had an iron bar of 110cm that, from a cheek, smashed the skull ( from the inside ).

By chance or miracle, Gage remained alive. But what happened in his brain was extremely interesting ( for science, much less to him ) . Before the accident, he was balanced, polite, clever and shrewd in business. After that, Gage became bizarre, defiant, unable to make profitable decisions for himself or to plan for his future as a social being. This is due to a lesion in the prefrontal cortex.

From this discovery it was realized that there are, in our brain, some areas that "manages" emotions and others for logic (although some have been used for both functions) . Gage was no longer able to have its own sake, nor to perceive pain. The part, so to speak, of his emotional brain does not work anymore, or at least work only partially and very bad. He was able, however, to perform all the logical operations of which he was capable before. So the logic in his brain, didn't receive any damage.

 

There are a sum of other scientific evidences of the importance of emotions and, more in deep, impulses into the development and maintenance of intelligence that only a part of the science, inside Artificial Intelligence field, continues to ignore.

 

Without emotions, any AI model can't "think to itself" and then be really intelligent. And if you want to say more, I could also say that emotions are the "reinforcement" that led humans build new parts of their mind to work with logic, and the consciousness is the counterpart of emotions, and is a "reinforcement" too, that natural selection brought to combat against emotions and then balance their exceeds (emotions, alone, can harness the logic of our mind and bring us to make choice that lead us to prove pleasure soon, despite what could be better for the future, but this is a more difficult part of the matter; if you want to go in deep, please wait for a couple of week to take my book "Biological Behavioural Model", or ask for information to some experts of Evolutionary Psychology).

 

What I want to say is that I could answer to the thirst question of the thread: if we continue to think that intelligence is only logic, not few months, but neither a billion of years could be enough to fulfil the goal of creating a virtual human mind.


Edited by Akalabeth, 14 February 2014 - 10:13 AM.


#97 Tutorial Doctor   Members   -  Reputation: 1389

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 14 February 2014 - 11:30 AM

Great post Akalabeth. I am going to bow out on this one, but I can say that Damasio and Guage are "close" to the reason a virtual mind is far from being simulated.

I was voted down in another thread where someone was trying to program a law system that only had laws for physics, and no laws for behavior. I said, "The term you are looking for is God."

There is more to our minds than just logic and math and science. We are not robots, we are "mushy beings," the great philosophers and thinkers of every time, and the times to come are still baffled by the human mind. They try to reduce its complexity down to a book like "The age of Reason," but I can reduce it down to even less.

We discern the difference between wrong and right, we explore and develop trains of thought.
We can be compassionate, or bitter, which will dynamically affect other parts of our behavior and our thinking patterns.

Every aspect of our mind is heavily integrated to every aspect of our being.

I'll go further to say that our being is not only comprised of mind and body, but of spirit also.

They call me the Tutorial Doctor.


#98 Akalabeth   Members   -  Reputation: 677

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 14 February 2014 - 01:00 PM

Bravo, Tutorial Doctor, you started from the right place. You said "We discern the difference between wrong and right", and this is the main difference between "learn" and "understand". All our current AI models, I refer to the learning machines and all the models that use neural networks, are able to learn things, not to understand them.

 

Let me introduce you to an example I've made in my blog (it's in Italian, but I'm just translating it in English): there are three reigns: the reign A, the reign B and the reign C. The first two are alwasys in war one each other, while the last one is unwarlike, and all its resources are driven toward scienses.

 

Suddenly, an earthquake shakes the ground in the realm A. There are collapsing buildings, thousands of deaths. Let us now give the "meaning" that the subjects of the three kingdoms do to the same event, namely the earthquake just happened.

In the realm A, certainly they will define it as "the catastrophe" and will remember that event certainly for so long as an "extremely negative event" The kingdom B, for its part, will define that earthquake as "a blessing from heaven" and it certainly will remember it for a long time "as the Divine that punished their warlike enemies". It 's very likely that the event has then changed the fortunes of war. So, for the subjects of the kingdom B the earthquake just happened is an "extremely positive event"

The subjects of the kingdom C, finally, define the event as an "extremely interesting event" because, with the subsequent large aftershocks that followed the big one, they have improved their understanding of the seismic event in general. Then they will remember it as an event "very positive" and appreciate the great contribution it made ​​to their knowledge of the planet.

 

So, what is the real meaning of that hearthquake? Which of the three reigns gave it the effective meaning? I want to go deeper in the issue: do you really believe that a thing or an event could really be valued by logic? Is Logic able to say that an event is good or bad? Neither in thousands of years this could happen. Simply because only emotions can let use "decide" what is wrong and what is good. But good and wrong are things that we can define only with a point of view. Hearthquake, collisions of planets or the flutter of a butterly are only events for logic, nothing more.

 

If someone of you wants to go in deep and continue with me this topic, I'll be happy, because I'm developing (maybe) the thirst AI model that takes into account the main discovers of biology and psychology.


Edited by Akalabeth, 14 February 2014 - 02:33 PM.





Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS