Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
Helter Skelter

Our brains really DON'T work like computers!

This topic is 4995 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

Quote:
So what I'm saying is that it would be hard to model just ONE brain... our computer brain will always be limited until we are able to set it up into a virtual world it can explore.


And even the way it would explore that virtual world would depend on prior experience. And what about upbringing ? how should that be simulated ?
perhaps with a bit of motherly soft computing ? :P

Quote:

Uhh pardon if my statement is a little obscure or foolish as I haven't attended university nor am I doing science in highschool. But feedback welcome


LOL
As we all know only people who have attented an university can have an original idea/thought...not!! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
That is the point, you have to start with the "base variables" of the universe and let everything evolve, it's not just as simple as creating a brain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Jemburula
Firstly, there is no such thing as random... Everything happens as a result of millions of little variables interacting with each other to create this result yes. So if you were able to somehow "universe save" or get the base variables at the time the universe was created and chuck them into your computer and allow it to grow/evolve just as if it were the real world based on some rules of the universe then if you got every little thing correct it would turn out just as what has happened.


The very basis of quantum mechanics says this is not true. According to classical physics alone (relativity) this is how the universe works, but modern physics says tat this is not be the case after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Promit
The very basis of quantum mechanics says this is not true. According to classical physics alone (relativity) this is how the universe works, but modern physics says tat this is not be the case after all.


You could easily describe the quantum model in a way that says invisible faireys, that have no mass and no energy, push around particles and other quanta, and could still satisfy the quantum model. faireys != random.

To say these things appear random would be more accurate.

There is a great quote by Hawking on this matter-- if my memory was a bit better I'd recite it. lol.






Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Promit
Quote:
Original post by Jemburula
Firstly, there is no such thing as random... Everything happens as a result of millions of little variables interacting with each other to create this result yes. So if you were able to somehow "universe save" or get the base variables at the time the universe was created and chuck them into your computer and allow it to grow/evolve just as if it were the real world based on some rules of the universe then if you got every little thing correct it would turn out just as what has happened.


The very basis of quantum mechanics says this is not true. According to classical physics alone (relativity) this is how the universe works, but modern physics says tat this is not be the case after all.


Actually, Jemburula is correct, depending on which basis of quantum mechanics you select and how deep you wish to take the phenomenological considerations. The most modern one, which you will not find in popularization books or other lay literature, the one I side with is that there is no irreducabile randomness in nature, even in Quantum mechanics. This whole quantum mechanics is magical paradigm is soo last century. [smile]

Nonetheless the point is moot as such an event as knowing all of the state of the universe is impossible, such is mutually exclusive in the strictest sense. In fact the two are so intertwined that it does not make sense to make a distinction between the two. That is, it is meaningless to make such statements as "irreducibly random". For example to ask such is to ask what it would be like if gravity was made of gravy, in the case of the existance of pure randomness in QM, when we answer the question we can say that the answer is no, we must make special cases and define impossible scenarios before the problem can be studied, as would be the case of answering what it would be like if gravity was made of gravy. Such misconceptions are to do with misunderstandings of the difference between seperable and divisible quantities.

===

Also, Nick, space is most definately not continous, that's what Ill explore next once I am done with the who big bang, time travel theme. The proof of why is quite interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by NickGeorgia
is a brain's capacity finite?


Well, duh!

If it was of an infinite size, then you might have a point, but otherwise, [sad].

From,
Nice coder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To remain on topic, I do not think ToohrVyk was saying space is continous but rather, our limited senses and our macroscopic size make us to percieve it as so. And for our purposes we define it as so. I also agree with his rant (the worst example of a rant I have ever seen! Far too cohesive and sensible), the idea of a discretely operating or processing brain seems a bit naive to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!