Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!emory!att!pacbell.com!ucsd!sdcc6!beowulf!velasco From: velasco@beowulf.ucsd.edu (Gabriel Velasco) Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: My view of intelligence... Keywords: I and intelligence Message-ID: Date: 23 Mar 91 18:48:25 GMT References: <13577@helios.TAMU.EDU> <69649@brunix.UUCP> Sender: news@sdcc6.ucsd.edu Lines: 57 cs196006@cs.brown.edu (Josh Hendrix) writes: >First, nerve cells are actually slow, firing on the order of 10,000 >times/second, while the cycles per second of your average Sun >workstation is measured in the millions. What does the speed of the computational element have to do with whether or not the system is a computer? How fast do you think the differential engine would have run? >Second, this means that, to do all the things that we effortlessly do, >(walk around, avoid things, etc.) the 'computer' in our skulls have to >be massively parallel. Again, how does this affect the comment that the brain is a computer? Are you saying it can't be a computer if it's massively parallel? >Third, this massive parallelism means that the neurons, the 'computing >elements', are hooked together very differently from the way CPU's, >busses, and chips are. Everyth at happens in your workstation happens >one 'operation' at a time, whereas all of the 'computation' that is >going on to allow you to see the screen right now is happening at the >same time. I don't think that the type of connectivity determines whether or not a system is a computer. The second part of your statement is not entirely true either. The brain apparently goes through states just like "regular" computers. >Of course, there's a lot of debate about that last sentence, so I do >not claim here to be the final word. But that's what seems to me to be >going on. What seems to be going on is that the brain moves through states. This has been shown through semantic net experiments where people take longer to answer questions that require them to traverse longer paths through the semantic net. >Again, I disagree. Cells may contain information of their own (DNA), >but the information that makes up a thought is stored in the >connections of many cells. How does this make the brain a non-computer? >Yes, I suppose if you had the time, money, fast enough CPU (which, I >would wager, does not exist yet), and programmers (lots) you might be >able to build something that, say, kicks you when you tap its knee. Earlier, you stated how slow the computational elements of the brain were. Apparently we don't a fast CPU. We probably need a huge amount of possibly slow ones connected in a similar manner. -- ________________________________________________ <>___, / / | ... and he called out and said, "Gabriel, give | /___/ __ / _ __ ' _ / | this man an understanding of the vision." | /\__/\(_/\/__)\/ (_/_(/_/|_ |_______________________________________Dan_8:16_|