[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Maintenance is complete! We got more disk space.
Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 32 KB, 636x773, NPC.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10965149 No.10965149 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

What programming language does the human brain run on ?

>> No.10965152


>> No.10965153

T. Gnome chomsky

>> No.10965157

expression 2 from gmod

>> No.10965161


>> No.10965164

A complex neural network of various types of cells

>> No.10965171

Is it more or less efficient than c++ ?

>> No.10965186


>> No.10965193

the electrical potential of neurons in analog form. the chemical end is mostly to unlock pathways but it would be to slow if it relied on constant releasing of chemicals to process data . also you have the problem of the chemical soup your brain wrest in 1 having finite space to take up and 2 it would constantly have to be adjusted to null the previous computation oftherwise. some people say its a chemical computer and ignore the electrical end which is inaccurate. that said the brain does complex things with proteins and some new data indicates light was found being emitted by brain cells in microscopic tubes within the inner workings of the brain. however it would still be floats not digital signals

>> No.10965287

It's about as inefficient as is possible. You can't really count it as a language either because there aren't even consistent results for basic operations.

>> No.10965303

recursive formulas that react to things based on input. in less than 100 years we will likely prove free will doesn't exist.

>> No.10965309

Will we stop having prisons and courts ?

>> No.10965313


>> No.10965322

No. We will just know (((who))) to eliminate before there's any further problems

>> No.10965351

it runs BIOs

>> No.10965366

Last guy with this idea ended up shooting himself. Just a friendly reminder, goyim.

>> No.10965389

This thread just shows how dumb sci really is
>runs on a language
Computers don't run on language. Why do you think code is compiled into machine code that gets run by the CPU? The only thing differing computers from calculators are conditional jumps, the computer doesn't understand human readable code by itself.

Or is this shitposting just super funny to you and I'm not getting the "joke"?

>> No.10965438

none. This thread is retarded and you should feel retarded.

>> No.10966058

Don't be this much of an autist, anon. Not OP but I've worked as a software developer for the past 10 years and I understood him just fine. He's obviously talking about the operating system. And everything ends up as machine code but that doesn't mean it's wrong to talk about Windows being written in C++ even though you could nitpick it to death and start a needlessly painful discussion about assembly and the non-popcorn variety of kernels.

>> No.10966176

>running DroneOS
>not being root and using native code

>> No.10966315

Biological brains are not Turing machines therefore they don't """run code""" or have an """instruction set""". But you know that, because you're a shitposter.
Now that you've gotten your (You), run along back to >>>/b/ your tranny porn is waiting for you to fap to it.

>> No.10966886


>> No.10966987

>Biological brains are not Turing machines
The conventional view is that biological brains *are* computable. Your view they aren't is the Penrose fringe minority. Don't act like it's well accepted.

>> No.10967599
File: 8 KB, 319x331, 1567782497888.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.10967617


>> No.10967733

computers don't intentionally lie. taking out the lie factor intentionally creates something that isn't human or relatable. making a computer that intentionally switches calculations to produce arbitrary answers, giving it the ability to lie, is just making a hunk of stupid shit.

if you want to make a human then stick your wiener in some thot's vagina.

>> No.10967771

von Neumann suggested it was a heavily statistical language. Whatever language the brain uses has to be very predictory.

>> No.10968005
File: 8 KB, 277x271, e8e.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

None of that is relevant to the claim about human brains not being computable.
There is NO legitimate evidence the human brain is something beyond a Turing machine or that it requires some nonsense quantum magic to reproduce it. The Penrose Orch-Or theory is bullshit.

>> No.10968025

runs on Java.

>> No.10968087
File: 642 KB, 445x875, 1549681209635.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Aren't you all just arguing over what experience gets to be the dominant description level event?


>> No.10968127


>> No.10968191


>> No.10968532

Oi wot if Psycho Pass woz real that'd be mad innit?

>> No.10968542

None. You have to make your own for that to mean anything. Unless you're programming an AI of yourself in your own mind, it's still none.

>> No.10968559

Your brain runs on:

An endless desire to procreate, status hunger, useless generic emotions and what little skills you have to satisfy the latter.

Your body will decay until it fails, taking your unfulfilled consciousness with it, gaining nothing losing it all.

Regarding NPCs, they probably run brainfuck on top of windows 8.1

>> No.10968757

>most impressive self sustaining information processing unit ever discovered
pick one

also brain is a neural network is as valid as calling the planet earth a steam engine

“object in nature is same thing as complicated abstraction human can conceive” tsk tsk

>> No.10968760

unironically best answer itt

>> No.10968786

Computers don't "run on a programing language." They run on machine code.

The programming language is just a tool to help us talk with computers. Humans could never understand machine code and computers could never understand English, so we needed to invent a language that both of us can understand in order to communicate. The programing language is just an intermediary language, and as an intermediary language it can be literally anything so long as both parties (human and computer) are both capable of understanding it and so long as the language can convey ideas or thoughts. In the case of computers, those thoughts/ideas are instructions.

>> No.10968826
File: 231 KB, 2000x1500, AYBABTU.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


Our brains have a basic algorithm that enables our intelligence

>> No.10968837

Shut the fuck up, nerd.

>> No.10968918

>tfw 40 replies and no one posted it

>> No.10968930
File: 62 KB, 701x803, a.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

The brain, like all matter in the universe and the universe itself, was written in COBOL

>> No.10969849

>also brain is a neural network is as valid as calling the planet earth a steam engine
What the fuck are you talking about? The post you replied to never called brains artificial neural networks.

>> No.10969869

I think their point was more that the Earth is actually a steam engine, ie., why we have clouds.

>> No.10969875

Software doesn't on programming language.

>> No.10969880

Repeat after me:

>> No.10969886

Looks like SQL.

>> No.10969891

Forgot to say:
It does NOT compute, it does NOT store memories, it does not retreive information from repositories.

>> No.10969892

>most impressive self sustaining information processing unit ever discovered
>pick one
"Impressive" doesn't have an actual well defined meaning for what you're trying to argue. And yes, biological brains are massively inefficient. Nobody seriously believes you would need to reproduce every particle of a brain exactly to accomplish the same cognitive tasks artificially. It wasn't designed in advance to be efficient, or to be anything at all. If it weren't inefficient, redundantly laid out, and lacking design you wouldn't see people with severe brain damage picking up lost cognitive tasks with entirely new undamaged areas of their brains. You can call that a good thing but lots of redundancy to the extent where some can even lose an entire 50% or more of their brains and still live and function is absolutely not an efficient design.

>> No.10969905

People nowadays take this "computer analogy bad" reactive dogma way too far in the opposite direction from the original problem of people inferring more computer-like features than what was warranted.
There's a happy medium of not being a pop sci clickbait writer talking about computer analogy too literally and also not being a Searle autist who denies any sort of computable equivalent for cognitive tasks is possible.

>> No.10969951

> some can even lose an entire 50% or more of their brains and still live and function is absolutely not an efficient design.
>people with severe brain damage picking up lost cognitive tasks with entirely new undamaged areas of their brains
Only at a very young age and they always lose something in return

>> No.10969973
File: 5 KB, 250x140, 1515881711935s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I said they've lived and have been able to function, not that they were left as 200 IQ Olympic athletes.
>Only at a very young age
Don't be a lying faggot.
>A total of 90 cases of adult hemispherectomy were identified, including 6 newly added by Barrow Neurological Institute. Sixty-five patients underwent functional hemispherectomy; 25 patients had anatomical hemispherectomy. Length of follow-up ranged from 9 to 456 months. Seizure freedom was achieved in 80% of patients. The overall morbidity rate was low, with 9 patients (10%) having new or additional postoperative speech or language dysfunction, and 19 patients (21%) reporting some worsening of hemiparesis. No patients lost ambulatory or significant functional ability, and 2 patients had objective ambulatory improvement. Among the 41 patients who underwent additional formal neuropsychological testing postoperatively, overall stability or improvement was seen.

>> No.10969994


>> No.10970023

> not that they were left as 200 IQ Olympic athletes.
You're kinda implying it s
look up"the lobotomist" if you want to know what taking away parts of the brain does to people

>> No.10970057

Computers are like a brain, but the brain is nothing like a computer.

Is this a fair statement, or is it double think gibberish?

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.