Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

How can people build a quantum computer but not understand how organic brain works?

NutNotBusted

NutNotBusted

Officer
★★★★
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Posts
805
We don't know all about human brain, a serious mapping is considered too difficult to do right now by scientist.
I believe that's bullshit, they want to hide researches in order to control the population better. There is no way we haven't improved our knowledge yet about organic brains.
 
The brain is much more complicated to understand than computers, for some reason or another. I don't really know the answer, but I don't believe knowledge is being hidden.
 
they are lying to you us government has already understood almost everything about the brain they can now use long distance electromagnetic waves via hidden high powered satellites to influence someone thoughts. long distance wireless eegs can also be used with artificially intelligent supercomputers to instantly tell what anyone is thinking anywhere in the world
 
Well humans invented computers but not brains. So to unravel the mysteries of brains you have to try to understand millions of years of evolution. Its like working backwards instead of forward.
 
The brain is a chemical computer that uses messengers and receptors governed by the laws of quantum mechanics.

Think multiple wet processors, all working at once, all (possibly) quantum computers. Like a big sloppy, fucked-up PS4.

https://www.livescience.com/37807-brain-is-not-quantum-computer.html

This is a decent analogy, to an extent.

they are lying to you us government has already understood almost everything about the brain they can now use long distance electromagnetic waves via hidden high powered satellites to influence someone thoughts. long distance wireless eegs can also be used with artificially intelligent supercomputers to instantly tell what anyone is thinking anywhere in the world

Lmfao.

Well humans invented computers but not brains. So to unravel the mysteries of brains you have to try to understand millions of years of evolution. Its like working backwards instead of forward.

Not entirely true. The evolutionary perspective is only one approach to understanding the brain, and is something that is actually very well understood at this stage. This is true for the functionalist approach as well (think computational theory of mind).

____________________________________________________________________

RE: OP: We actually have a ton of knowledge about the brain so I don't know what you are talking about. A "serious" mapping of a brain is both feasible and extant. The only issue is that it is a mapping of a prototypical brain - one that is generated as an example of a normal brain, not an actual individual's brain.

It all depends on what kind of map you want. If you're aiming at what I think you are, which is neuronal network mapping, then the issue with mapping a real human's brain is that there currently isn't an entirely safe way to do so that isn't also incredibly painstakingly slow and reliant on patient feedback. It also depends on how much detail you want to go into, as well as what kind of map you really want - just a bunch of roads? Or do you want the roads and destinations to be named? If so, why do you think that is feasible given the absurd amount of neurons that we have, and the fact that while the average person may have similar "areas" of the brain with similar functions, their neuronal configuration and specialization is unique to them?

Let me put it in simpler terms.

Think of a 10 x 10 grid:

GS10-B-2.jpg

I know this isn't 10x10 but this is just a visual aid.

There are 100 squares in a 10 x 10 grid.

gridbox_b.jpg

I know this isn't 10x10x10 either.

Now, if we make that grid into a box by putting a grid vertically next to it and expanding them both, you will get 1000 cubes. Let's imagine that every 3D corner of a little cube is a neuron; keep in mind that there are 8 corners to a cube, even though all or most are going to be shared with their neighboring cubes. That is a lot of corners!

Let's do it in a more direct way that involves less complicated math.

Manhattan_streets_map.jpg


Manhattan, New York City, and all of its streets. Now make picture a box, with each one of faces of the box being a map of Manhattan. Now, fill the inside of the cube by projecting every street that is on the surface through to the other end of the cube. Now, at every point where there is an intersection, we have to name that intersection.

On Manhattan island, there are 11,485 street corners, with about 700 streets making them. That means that if we assume that each side of Manhattan has the same amount of streets (it doesn't but bear with me), then that means there are about 350 streets on each pair of sides (because a street runs from one side to another). In order to have a decent guesstimate as to how many 3D intersections our box would have inside of it, we need to multiply the 2D figure (11,485 corners) by the "1D" figure of a single side (350). This yields 4019750 total 3D intersections - a model of over 4 million neurons. Imagine having to map every single one, and label what it does and what it's responsible for and what the various pathways are! For example, the neuron at (10,122,34) on the (x,y,z) plane has meaningful connections to neurons at both (56,13,270) and (234,120,16), each path being responsible for a different thought process. How are you going to "map" each one of those connections in a reasonable way?

Now, keep in mind - this is only 4 million neurons. Do you know how many neurons we have? We have 25,000 times more than that, for a total of 100 billion neurons.

So, this begs the question, if indeed this is the kind of mapping you think the government has hidden from us: is it because YOU know so little about the brain that you assume that all of humanity does, and thus why you think that a map of over 100 billion individual neurons in each individual human being is feasible with the technology that is available today?
 
Last edited:
This is a decent analogy, to an extent.



Lmfao.



Not entirely true. The evolutionary perspective is only one approach to understanding the brain, and is something that is actually very well understood at this stage. This is true for the functionalist approach as well (think computational theory of mind).

____________________________________________________________________

RE: OP: We actually have a ton of knowledge about the brain so I don't know what you are talking about. A "serious" mapping of a brain is both feasible and extant. The only issue is that it is a mapping of a prototypical brain - one that is generated as an example of a normal brain, not an actual individual's brain.

It all depends on what kind of map you want. If you're aiming at what I think you are, which is neuronal network mapping, then the issue with mapping a real human's brain is that there currently isn't an entirely safe way to do so that isn't also incredibly painstakingly slow and reliant on patient feedback. It also depends on how much detail you want to go into, as well as what kind of map you really want - just a bunch of roads? Or do you want the roads and destinations to be named? If so, why do you think that is feasible given the absurd amount of neurons that we have, and the fact that while the average person may have similar "areas" of the brain with similar functions, their neuronal configuration and specialization is unique to them?

Let me put it in simpler terms.

Think of a 10 x 10 grid:

GS10-B-2.jpg

I know this isn't 10x10 but this is just a visual aid.

There are 100 squares in a 10 x 10 grid.

gridbox_b.jpg

I know this isn't 10x10x10 either.

Now, if we make that grid into a box by putting a grid vertically next to it and expanding them both, you will get 1000 cubes. Let's imagine that every 3D corner of a little cube is a neuron; keep in mind that there are 8 corners to a cube, even though all or most are going to be shared with their neighboring cubes. That is a lot of corners!

Let's do it in a more direct way that involves less complicated math.

Manhattan_streets_map.jpg


Manhattan, New York City, and all of its streets. Now make picture a box, with each one of faces of the box being a map of Manhattan. Now, fill the inside of the cube by projecting every street that is on the surface through to the other end of the cube. Now, at every point where there is an intersection, we have to name that intersection.

On Manhattan island, there are 11,485 street corners, with about 700 streets making them. That means that if we assume that each side of Manhattan has the same amount of streets (it doesn't but bear with me), then that means there are about 350 streets on each pair of sides (because a street runs from one side to another). In order to have a decent guesstimate as to how many 3D intersections our box would have inside of it, we need to multiply the 2D figure (11,485 corners) by the "1D" figure of a single side (350). This yields 4019750 total 3D intersections - a model of over 4 million neurons. Imagine having to map every single one, and label what it does and what it's responsible for and what the various pathways are! For example, the neuron at (10,122,34) on the (x,y,z) plane has meaningful connections to neurons at both (56,13,270) and (234,120,16), each path being responsible for a different thought process. How are you going to "map" each one of those connections in a reasonable way?

Now, keep in mind - this is only 4 million neurons. Do you know how many neurons we have? We have 25,000 times more than that, for a total of 100 billion neurons.

So, this begs the question, if indeed this is the kind of mapping you think the government has hidden from us: is it because YOU know so little about the brain that you assume that all of humanity does, and thus why you think that a map of over 100 billion individual neurons in each individual human being is feasible with the technology that is available today?
It is quite a lot of work as you demonstrated, however I believe that something like that is achievable if private companies like Amazon, Google poured the same amount of money they have been pouring to develop complex AI and quantum processing unit, into the understanding of organic brains. The numbers in this game are huge but with electronic calculators and the right techniques, this can be achieved.
I believe that military and government are way ahead in therms of understanding than what we civilians are.
I am not trying to be a conspiracy theorist cunt, but it is a fact they have more advanced tech and knowledge than a common doctor or scientist.
 
Last edited:
All I see when I read studies about the brains are like "the region of the brain controlling emotion is active when ..., the region controlling memory, the region controlling movement...".
Scientific studies talk about regions of the brain in general, they do not talk precisely about how and where the electric impulse is processed and the pathways involved in specific activities since it is considered too difficult to do.
 
I believe that military and government are way ahead in therms of understanding than what we civilians are.
that has always been true about every kind of technology
 
ciao stronzino come va
 
@blickpall ma la pianti di dire troiate?
 
All I see when I read studies about the brains are like "the region of the brain controlling emotion is active when ..., the region controlling memory, the region controlling movement...".
Scientific studies talk about regions of the brain in general, they do not talk precisely about how and where the electric impulse is processed and the pathways involved in specific activities since it is considered too difficult to do.

In those cases I imagine it is because that level of information is all that is necessary to convey the meaning of what is going on. It is perfectly irrelevant what one individual's particular neuron circuitry is when we discuss trends about brain areas across populations.

In other words, if the reason why humans are able to throw a baseball is due to the connection between their striatum, cerebellum, and frontal cortex, then is it really relevant what particular neuron in one particular person is responsible for this? As I already explained to you, each one of us has a unique system of neurons. For one person, Neuron#123057CD is the one that is responsible for recognizing a baseball, while in another person it is Neuron#3p9845Z. Is this information relevant or even important to discuss when discussing throwing a baseball?

To continue down this line of thought, it is NOT too difficult to determine precisely "how and where the electric impulse is processed in the pathways." Please do some research before formulating ignorant opinions that sound like they come from a "conspiracy theorist cunt." Here are some research summaries/articles about studies done on single neuron.

One of the most famous examples is the "Halle Berry" neuron. I submit that I did not read the research study myself, so I can't speak intelligently about whether or not this particular study is valid or not, but you can do that yourself if you have the interest:

http://www.caltech.edu/news/single-cell-recognition-halle-berry-brain-cell-1013

I have read a ton of studies about single neuron imaging in relation to visual processing. Here is a layman's overview of the most fundamental findings:

https://knowingneurons.com/2014/10/29/hubel-and-wiesel-the-neural-basis-of-visual-perception/

Beyond this, you will find that in the TI region of the visual system, there is even more sub-specialization of single neurons. For example, a single neuron will react strongly to a lollipop shape with a thin handle and a circular head, will react weakly to a thick handle or star-shaped head, and will react very weakly to just a circle or just a stick.

This is all to say that we DO have the technology and means for determining what the "specific pathways" are and even what specific neurons are responsible for.

In other words, what you are saying is patently false or at least based on wildly insufficient sampling.
 
This is a decent analogy, to an extent.
I'll take it considering I pulled the entire thing out of my ass.

I haven't given brain-mapping as much thought as I should have. I'm more of a software guy i.e. qualia, hard-problem and whatnot
 
This is one of the most enlightening things I've seen about the brain recently.



You may well have hit the nail on the head. The human body uses many tricks of quantum mechanics in order to work. The sense of taste for example (most of which is actually your sense of smell) my guess is there are numerous quantum processes at work. For example. No one truly understands exactly what consciousness is although the prevailing opinion is its born out of complexity.

Current classical computers are in many ways horrendously primitive. Most computers and applications struggle to run on much more than 4 parallel processes. The brain is much more like a GPU with vast parallel processing capabilities. Current computer science lacks the programming language in order to coordinate the on going activity of a brain. Not to mention the brain also uses various quantum tricks in order to keep everything running.

AI really is a very long way off. We will have all sorts of specialist AI which can tackle certain tasks with minimal human intervention. We may create machines which operate at the effectiveness of a trained animal but a general super intelligence? I'm 30 and i'd put the chance at not seeing that in my lifetime.
 
The brain is much more complicated to understand than computers, for some reason or another. I don't really know the answer, but I don't believe knowledge is being hidden.
Because you are just another sheeple.
 
Because autism
Ancient-Aliens.jpg
 
This is one of the most enlightening things I've seen about the brain recently.



You may well have hit the nail on the head. The human body uses many tricks of quantum mechanics in order to work. The sense of taste for example (most of which is actually your sense of smell) my guess is there are numerous quantum processes at work. For example. No one truly understands exactly what consciousness is although the prevailing opinion is its born out of complexity.

Current classical computers are in many ways horrendously primitive. Most computers and applications struggle to run on much more than 4 parallel processes. The brain is much more like a GPU with vast parallel processing capabilities. Current computer science lacks the programming language in order to coordinate the on going activity of a brain. Not to mention the brain also uses various quantum tricks in order to keep everything running.

AI really is a very long way off. We will have all sorts of specialist AI which can tackle certain tasks with minimal human intervention. We may create machines which operate at the effectiveness of a trained animal but a general super intelligence? I'm 30 and i'd put the chance at not seeing that in my lifetime.


It's really hard to say with any certainty. AI could be a few breakthroughs away from enormous bounds of progress, or it could be theoretically limited and we just don't know it yet (for example, the creator paradox is still something that I'm not fully convinced we can feasibly solve). It's impossible to know what you don't know.

What we do know is that computing and technology are growing at exponential rates in many fields. The progress in the past 10 years dwarfs the progress of the previous 10 in terms of optimization, miniaturization, and other processes which seem to be important for the task of advancing AI and simulated neural networks.

In other words, I don't feel comfortable telling you to hold your breath but at the same time I don't think it'd be to bad of a bet to do so.
 
It's really hard to say with any certainty. AI could be a few breakthroughs away from enormous bounds of progress, or it could be theoretically limited and we just don't know it yet (for example, the creator paradox is still something that I'm not fully convinced we can feasibly solve). It's impossible to know what you don't know.

What we do know is that computing and technology are growing at exponential rates in many fields. The progress in the past 10 years dwarfs the progress of the previous 10 in terms of optimization, miniaturization, and other processes which seem to be important for the task of advancing AI and simulated neural networks.

In other words, I don't feel comfortable telling you to hold your breath but at the same time I don't think it'd be to bad of a bet to do so.
People on Google and Amazon are not stupid, they are investing billions of bucks because they are 100% certain they can develop cutting edge tech that willis change our lives in the next decade.
 
People on Google and Amazon are not stupid, they are investing billions of bucks because they are 100% certain they can develop cutting edge tech that willis change our lives in the next decade.

Yes, because we haven't hit a ceiling yet, but that doesn't mean that we never will. It doesn't matter how smart you are, you don't know what you can't know, simple as that.

To make another analogy, let's say you're in an elevator shaft. You have a small flashlight that you're holding in your teeth as you climb up the shaft, but other than that it is completely dark. You can only see 5 feet in front of you to the next handhold. You're climbing and climbing. You keep investing energy into climbing, with the hope that eventually you will be able to reach the top and that there is no ceiling separating you from the roof, which is the plateau you're trying to reach (autonomous AI). However, you won't know if there is a ceiling or obstacle blocking your path until you're within 5 feet of said ceiling. You're aware of the theories that say that there may be a ceiling, while others say that there isn't one, but you can't know which is correct until you've neared the top of the elevator shaft.
 
People on Google and Amazon are not stupid, they are investing billions of bucks because they are 100% certain they can develop cutting edge tech that willis change our lives in the next decade.

Actually its not necessarily the case. Due to various structural changes in the western economies since the 1980's most of the big tech companies like Google, Facebook and Amazon have no idea what to spend their money on. Many ideas where we really should have innovation don't receive any because most of our best and brightest go into financial services or just want to make the next killer app. Even though these fields are at saturation point.

I mean look at a lot of our technology today. Its just slightly refined versions of stuff that is over 100 years old. In many cases we have gone backwards since the 1960's. In the 1960's we had a supersonic airliner. We landed on the moon. We were exploring nuclear thermal rocket propulsion for deep space travel and molten salt nuclear reactors which used Thorium instead of Uranium. We can't do any of that today.

It's really hard to say with any certainty. AI could be a few breakthroughs away from enormous bounds of progress, or it could be theoretically limited and we just don't know it yet (for example, the creator paradox is still something that I'm not fully convinced we can feasibly solve). It's impossible to know what you don't know.

What we do know is that computing and technology are growing at exponential rates in many fields. The progress in the past 10 years dwarfs the progress of the previous 10 in terms of optimization, miniaturization, and other processes which seem to be important for the task of advancing AI and simulated neural networks.

In other words, I don't feel comfortable telling you to hold your breath but at the same time I don't think it'd be to bad of a bet to do so.

Well that's a bit of a problem because we're at the end of Moore's law. The transistors can't get much smaller even with a revolution in materials science at this scale Quantum tunneling effects make smaller transistors impractical. All we've got at this point is cheaper fabrication methods and maybe optimization or maybe some progress towards making greater parallel processing more practical for every day computing.

I mean we're on the 8th generation of Intel Core processors at the moment. My personal machines use 45nm Gen 1 (Nahlem?), 22nm Gen 3 (Ivybridge) and 14nm Gen 5 (Broadwell) and i have an 8th Gen Skylake laptop from my employer. Which i believe is an 8nm process. Even my 2010 i7 can still keep up with most tasks that i ask of it but i see next to no difference in performance between Ivybridge and Skylake for day to day tasks. In fact i actually prefer the older hardware because it isn't soldered and glued together like the newer stuff is. The only place where we seem to have had meaningful progress is in GPU's.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top