Comments on: Geeks Weigh In: Does a Human Think Faster Than a Computer? http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/geeks-weigh-in-does-a-human-think-faster-than-a-computer/ Cool Websites, Software and Internet Tips Sat, 11 Feb 2012 06:26:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Call Center Guy http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/geeks-weigh-in-does-a-human-think-faster-than-a-computer/#comment-414145 Call Center Guy Mon, 26 Oct 2009 01:59:12 +0000 http://www.makeuseof.com/?p=25585#comment-414145 Ok now I can't look at anything without thinking about how fast my brain is processing and calculating these images. As for the debate, until computers can smell and feel, while doing other things such as sitting up straight, feeling hunger, and craving for a smoke while sitting in the office reading blogs rather than doing work, human brain > fastest computer. Ok now I can’t look at anything without thinking about how fast my brain is processing and calculating these images.

As for the debate, until computers can smell and feel, while doing other things such as sitting up straight, feeling hunger, and craving for a smoke while sitting in the office reading blogs rather than doing work, human brain > fastest computer.

]]> By: Doctor Fonz http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/geeks-weigh-in-does-a-human-think-faster-than-a-computer/#comment-409424 Doctor Fonz Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:03:40 +0000 http://www.makeuseof.com/?p=25585#comment-409424 Your the topic on processing power is *very* incorrect. You mention that the 2009 Supercomputer 'Roadrunner' is ticking over at 12 GFlops - heck, my graphics card is running at over 1000 GFlops, aka 1 TFlop. I think you'll find that Roadrunner actually has the processing power of 1.1 MILLION GFlops, also known as PFlops or Petaflops. This flaws this plus point to humans I'm afraid :-( ...and thats not taking into consideration distributed supercomputers made up of millions of smaller nodes. Folding @ Home peaks at over 7 Petaflops, making it six times faster than Roadrunner! Evidence of Roadrunner's speed at the following URL :- http://www.top500.org/system/performance/9707 Your the topic on processing power is *very* incorrect.

You mention that the 2009 Supercomputer ‘Roadrunner’ is ticking over at 12 GFlops – heck, my graphics card is running at over 1000 GFlops, aka 1 TFlop.

I think you’ll find that Roadrunner actually has the processing power of 1.1 MILLION GFlops, also known as PFlops or Petaflops.

This flaws this plus point to humans I’m afraid :-( …and thats not taking into consideration distributed supercomputers made up of millions of smaller nodes. Folding @ Home peaks at over 7 Petaflops, making it six times faster than Roadrunner!

Evidence of Roadrunner’s speed at the following URL :-
http://www.top500.org/system/performance/9707

]]> By: Gir http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/geeks-weigh-in-does-a-human-think-faster-than-a-computer/#comment-407525 Gir Wed, 30 Sep 2009 00:21:42 +0000 http://www.makeuseof.com/?p=25585#comment-407525 Disclaimer: I am not, by any means an expert of any sort, but just a student that does a bit of reading from time to time, and it has been a year or two since I read these types of articles. It is my understanding that our brain cells do not only process one bit, but that they process one or more q-bit/s(quantum bit/s). I believe(from my understanding) that comparing bits to q-bits or Bytes to q-Bytes, etc, is again like comparing apples to oranges. For a little more research, you can go to: www.quantumconsciousness.org or look into: quantum consciousness, microtubules, look into some quantum theory, or possibly read about quantum computers I really enjoyed reading this article, but mostly I just wanted to stir the pot a bit. I don't care if any or all information I have presented is disbelieved or thrown out, I just thought it deserved stating. Disclaimer: I am not, by any means an expert of any sort, but just a student that does a bit of reading from time to time, and it has been a year or two since I read these types of articles.

It is my understanding that our brain cells do not only process one bit, but that they process one or more q-bit/s(quantum bit/s). I believe(from my understanding) that comparing bits to q-bits or Bytes to q-Bytes, etc, is again like comparing apples to oranges.

For a little more research, you can go to:
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org
or look into: quantum consciousness, microtubules, look into some quantum theory, or possibly read about quantum computers

I really enjoyed reading this article, but mostly I just wanted to stir the pot a bit. I don’t care if any or all information I have presented is disbelieved or thrown out, I just thought it deserved stating.

]]> By: Ryan Dube http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/geeks-weigh-in-does-a-human-think-faster-than-a-computer/#comment-407504 Ryan Dube Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:03:24 +0000 http://www.makeuseof.com/?p=25585#comment-407504 Soph - you've just pulled off an excellent comparison, and a great article in itself. Thanks for writing it and offering your opinion, I enjoyed the read! Soph – you’ve just pulled off an excellent comparison, and a great article in itself. Thanks for writing it and offering your opinion, I enjoyed the read!

]]> By: Soph http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/geeks-weigh-in-does-a-human-think-faster-than-a-computer/#comment-407487 Soph Tue, 29 Sep 2009 21:53:32 +0000 http://www.makeuseof.com/?p=25585#comment-407487 You're comparing a flop to a neuron firing as your benchmark "unit" and then making comparisons in terms of these. It's too apples-to-oranges a comparison to give any kind of meaningful answer. Is a neuron like a processor? It evaluates input and computes an output, so it is somewhat processor-like, but it's output is just a 1-bit, yes/no, fire/no-fire, answer. Even the most active neurons in the brain fire around 10-100 times per second (perhaps as much as 300-500). 1k per second or so is probably the maximum firing rate, and if you down some ecstasy with a can of redbull, snort some coke, smoke some meth, strap on your nitrous mask and have sex with a supermodel while riding a rollercoaster through a fireworks display at a rock concert, you might get some of your neurons to fire that fast. You'll also cause quite a bit of permanent brain damage. A neuron then is somewhat like a slow, 1-bit processor. It would appear rather pathetic compared to even the rather run of the mill processors that control things like, say, an elevator, or the electrical timing of a modern car's ignition system. We now have 64, 128 and 256-bit procossesors, operating many millions and billions times faster. By these standards a neuron sucks and the brain is pretty lame. But flops is a lousy proxy for intelligence. Ramp your brain up to a million times its normal speed and you'd think a lot faster, but you wouldn't be any smarter. If you didn't understand something with a 1khtz brain, you still wouldn't understand it with a 1petahtz brain. On the plus side it would only take one trillionth as long to realize that you didn't understand it. There are around 10 billion neurons in an adult human brain (Specifically there are around 10 billion cortical pyramidal cells, which are believed to be the main cells responsible for cognition, and billions more glial and other support cells). The better analogy here might be to the transistor. Transistors can be used as switches, like the on/off firing of a neuron, and they can be used as amplifiers, a slightly more complicated process (though not nearly as complicated as the process by which a neuron fires). The quad-core Itanium processor under development by Intel will have around 2 billion transistors, or about one fifth the number of neurons in a human brain. By the imperfect comparisons used thus far one could say that it is one fifth as "powerful" as a human brain, though many million times faster. Then again, as a quad-core processor, it might be more akin to four rat brains wired together and floating in a bucket of liquid amphetamines. I would be very surprised if there weren't super computers out there that didn't already have more than 10 billion transistors, and operate billions of times faster than the brain. But, where the brain really excels is in networking. Typical transistors have just two inputs and one output, a neuron has thousands of inputs and thousands of outputs. Synapse--the points of connection between neurons--number around 100 trillion, or 100,000,000,000,000. The mylenated axons, or "white matter", that branches out from the main body of each neuron, aka "gray matter", is so prevalent in the brain that if every axon of a 20 year old adult male were laid end to end it would stretch more than 120,000 miles, enough to circle the Earth one and a half times. That's a lot of ethernet cable packed inside the average noggin'. All these comparisons are silly. Brains and computers operate on fundamentally different architectures. Computers operate in serial, a sequence of steps operating on an external set of data. Brains operate in parallel, and the data storage and processing take place in the same place. If it can be broken down into a series of discrete steps that need to be applied over and over, or if it involves large data sets, use a computer. If it involves pattern matching, a brain works better. You’re comparing a flop to a neuron firing as your benchmark “unit” and then making comparisons in terms of these. It’s too apples-to-oranges a comparison to give any kind of meaningful answer.
Is a neuron like a processor? It evaluates input and computes an output, so it is somewhat processor-like, but it’s output is just a 1-bit, yes/no, fire/no-fire, answer. Even the most active neurons in the brain fire around 10-100 times per second (perhaps as much as 300-500). 1k per second or so is probably the maximum firing rate, and if you down some ecstasy with a can of redbull, snort some coke, smoke some meth, strap on your nitrous mask and have sex with a supermodel while riding a rollercoaster through a fireworks display at a rock concert, you might get some of your neurons to fire that fast. You’ll also cause quite a bit of permanent brain damage.
A neuron then is somewhat like a slow, 1-bit processor. It would appear rather pathetic compared to even the rather run of the mill processors that control things like, say, an elevator, or the electrical timing of a modern car’s ignition system. We now have 64, 128 and 256-bit procossesors, operating many millions and billions times faster. By these standards a neuron sucks and the brain is pretty lame. But flops is a lousy proxy for intelligence. Ramp your brain up to a million times its normal speed and you’d think a lot faster, but you wouldn’t be any smarter. If you didn’t understand something with a 1khtz brain, you still wouldn’t understand it with a 1petahtz brain. On the plus side it would only take one trillionth as long to realize that you didn’t understand it.
There are around 10 billion neurons in an adult human brain (Specifically there are around 10 billion cortical pyramidal cells, which are believed to be the main cells responsible for cognition, and billions more glial and other support cells). The better analogy here might be to the transistor. Transistors can be used as switches, like the on/off firing of a neuron, and they can be used as amplifiers, a slightly more complicated process (though not nearly as complicated as the process by which a neuron fires). The quad-core Itanium processor under development by Intel will have around 2 billion transistors, or about one fifth the number of neurons in a human brain. By the imperfect comparisons used thus far one could say that it is one fifth as “powerful” as a human brain, though many million times faster. Then again, as a quad-core processor, it might be more akin to four rat brains wired together and floating in a bucket of liquid amphetamines.
I would be very surprised if there weren’t super computers out there that didn’t already have more than 10 billion transistors, and operate billions of times faster than the brain. But, where the brain really excels is in networking. Typical transistors have just two inputs and one output, a neuron has thousands of inputs and thousands of outputs. Synapse–the points of connection between neurons–number around 100 trillion, or 100,000,000,000,000. The mylenated axons, or “white matter”, that branches out from the main body of each neuron, aka “gray matter”, is so prevalent in the brain that if every axon of a 20 year old adult male were laid end to end it would stretch more than 120,000 miles, enough to circle the Earth one and a half times. That’s a lot of ethernet cable packed inside the average noggin’.
All these comparisons are silly. Brains and computers operate on fundamentally different architectures. Computers operate in serial, a sequence of steps operating on an external set of data. Brains operate in parallel, and the data storage and processing take place in the same place. If it can be broken down into a series of discrete steps that need to be applied over and over, or if it involves large data sets, use a computer. If it involves pattern matching, a brain works better.

]]> By: drawforjoy http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/geeks-weigh-in-does-a-human-think-faster-than-a-computer/#comment-407437 drawforjoy Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:05:55 +0000 http://www.makeuseof.com/?p=25585#comment-407437 Very interesting article. Anyway, our mind is better and funnier. Very interesting article. Anyway, our mind is better and funnier.

]]> By: RegBes http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/geeks-weigh-in-does-a-human-think-faster-than-a-computer/#comment-407141 RegBes Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:29:05 +0000 http://www.makeuseof.com/?p=25585#comment-407141 Processing Power != Intelligence. You need to define intelligence clearly for a definitive answer. In basic intelligence tests like games of chess and go computers have been gaining and surpassed all but the very best human players of these games. A better test of intelligence is the Turning Test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_Test The programming languages and the programs that have been written to make computers (appear?) intelligent, is where the rubber meets the road and where this question will be answered not in processing power. Processing Power != Intelligence.

You need to define intelligence clearly for a definitive answer. In basic intelligence tests like games of chess and go computers have been gaining and surpassed all but the very best human players of these games.

A better test of intelligence is the Turning Test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_Test

The programming languages and the programs that have been written to make computers (appear?) intelligent, is where the rubber meets the road and where this question will be answered not in processing power.

]]> By: Ryan Dube http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/geeks-weigh-in-does-a-human-think-faster-than-a-computer/#comment-407082 Ryan Dube Mon, 28 Sep 2009 01:51:10 +0000 http://www.makeuseof.com/?p=25585#comment-407082 Thanks - the processor is actually 12.8 GFlops as noted on any of the specs you read on it - so while it's cute that (in light of all of the reader comments above laying out the true overall processing power of the Roadrunner) you can laugh your ass off - why don't you offer a thoughtful opinion on the larger issue while you're at it? If the Roadrunner does have a greater ability to process more operations/computations per second than the human brain, does that make it more "intelligent"? Thanks – the processor is actually 12.8 GFlops as noted on any of the specs you read on it – so while it’s cute that (in light of all of the reader comments above laying out the true overall processing power of the Roadrunner) you can laugh your ass off – why don’t you offer a thoughtful opinion on the larger issue while you’re at it?

If the Roadrunner does have a greater ability to process more operations/computations per second than the human brain, does that make it more “intelligent”?

]]> By: Ryan Dube http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/geeks-weigh-in-does-a-human-think-faster-than-a-computer/#comment-407081 Ryan Dube Mon, 28 Sep 2009 01:49:18 +0000 http://www.makeuseof.com/?p=25585#comment-407081 What a great & thorough response BobT - I enjoyed reading this. What a great & thorough response BobT – I enjoyed reading this.

]]> By: Ryan Dube http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/geeks-weigh-in-does-a-human-think-faster-than-a-computer/#comment-407079 Ryan Dube Mon, 28 Sep 2009 01:48:12 +0000 http://www.makeuseof.com/?p=25585#comment-407079 Guys...thanks for the correction on the Roadrunner, I appreciate you guys setting that straight - but what I'd *really* love to hear is your opinion on the brain vs. computer debate? Do you have one? Guys…thanks for the correction on the Roadrunner, I appreciate you guys setting that straight – but what I’d *really* love to hear is your opinion on the brain vs. computer debate? Do you have one?

]]>