Does the brain have a kernel?

Does the brain have a kernel?

Other urls found in this thread:

aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdala
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Well I did get some popcorn stuck in the back of my throat once.

try running `uname -a` on your system

did u died?

This. If you have died, please tell us what death is like.

the brainstem ecks dee

...

Sci would just be all 'the brain isn't a computer'

>be all
>>>/worldstar/

>Comparing the human brain to a computer
Please can we kill this meme?

But the brain does computation

Not in anything resembling the way a computer does though.

This

If the brain isn't a computer why can I add any two arbitrary numbers?

>mfw my brain's kernel has a kernel panic and tries to do a memory dump without a backup

Point me an arithmetic algorithm humans couldn't implement with adequate time and scratch paper.

God damn I'm being baited here.

Just because you come to the same outcome as a computer or can accomplish the same task doesn't mean that they're the same thing.

I bet you can't do 59^18 in your head tho, even though a computer with much lower processing power can.

The brain is the kernel

>Just because you come to the same outcome as a computer or can accomplish the same task doesn't mean that they're the same thing.
Is there anything other than a computer which can implement arbitrary algorithms?

The kernel is the part of the brain that is not thinking so everything but the frontal lobe.

You're just arguing about semantics.

>I bet you can't do 59^18 in your head tho, even though a computer with much lower processing power can.

The brain does a lot more computation than a computer, so pointing out a single task it's slow at doesn't help your argument.

>I bet you can't do 59^18 in your head tho, even though a computer with much lower processing power can.
Can the brain actually not do it or does the task scheduler just kill the thread?

The brain and computer isn't analogous.

Not at any level.

The Halting Problem ^^

I beg to differ, they both take electric input, process it as information, and produce an output.

>I beg to differ

Then you're wrong.

>they both take electric input

Brains use chemically derived energy.

> process it as information

Brains do not "process" information.

aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer

Not all the information is in electric form. For all we know, there might also be information beyond the soul.

>Brains use chemically derived energy.
So do most computers, namely from the chemical reaction of burning coal
The article you wrote is by a psychologist with apparently little understanding of the concept of computation.

>So do most computers, namely from the chemical reaction of burning coal

Brains do not have a plug. Energy is derived from the bloodstream in the form of disolved carbohydrates.

You numpty.

>The article you wrote is by a psychologist with apparently little understanding of the concept of computation.

I suggest you look at the title of the pic I posted. Now Google: MartinHeidegger, Dreyfus and artificial intelligence.

Thank me later for saving you from wasting a lot of time barking up the wrong tree...

>Brains do not have a plug. Energy is derived from the bloodstream in the form of disolved carbohydrates.
>You numpty.
Whether a computer is powered by a crank-wheel, glucose, or mains electricity makes no difference to the fact its a computer. The fact you think this is relevant combined with deciding to post that link makes me seriously question the soundness of your reasoning capabilities.

>Quoting philosophers who don't understand the theory of computation

The brain is not a computer. The brain is a "brain", the idea that it is a computer is simply a metaphor.

Read this:

>The invention of hydraulic engineering in the 3rd century BCE led to the popularity of a hydraulic model of human intelligence, the idea that the flow of different fluids in the body – the ‘humours’ – accounted for both our physical and mental functioning. The hydraulic metaphor persisted for more than 1,600 years, handicapping medical practice all the while.

>By the 1500s, automata powered by springs and gears had been devised, eventually inspiring leading thinkers such as René Descartes to assert that humans are complex machines. In the 1600s, the British philosopher Thomas Hobbes suggested that thinking arose from small mechanical motions in the brain. By the 1700s, discoveries about electricity and chemistry led to new theories of human intelligence – again, largely metaphorical in nature. In the mid-1800s, inspired by recent advances in communications, the German physicist Hermann von Helmholtz compared the brain to a telegraph

We simply use the most complex technology of our age to explain something we don't understand.

>>Quoting philosophers who don't understand the theory of computation

Analystic Philosophers invented computer science.

I see Sup Forums has become eternal summer...

Brain has a gigantic amount of kernels.

Seriously the worst board. If you want some good answers related to science and mathematics, just rephrase the question to be related with another boards topic and post it there.

>We simply use the most complex technology of our age to explain something we don't understand.
We do understand it. We can observe neurons. We see them react to signals of high enough strength. We do not theorize what brain consists of - like those quotes you posted - we observe and document.

>ITT: Idiots who don't seem to understand that the term "computer" is a broad term of anything that computes.

Enjoy remaining unemployed with your Philosophy degree. You'll have plenty of time in your life to ponder about profound questions.

And then some retard sees that the brain has inputs and outputs and assumes it must be a von neumman machine, somehow.

Consciousness is the kernel. Everything else are kernel modules.

>We do understand it.

I can assure we do not understand the functioning of the brain.

>Makes fun of pseudo-intellectuals
>ignores common parlance and uses words in the most pedantic way possible

A computer is a box of blinking lights that does math really fast

No one said von neumman.
No one but you.
You have been basing your argument on an incorrect assumption the whole time and made a gigantic fool out of yourself.

I’d just like to interject for a moment. What you’re refering to as Brain, is in fact, GNU/Brain, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Brain. Brain is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU consciousness made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full sentient being as defined by POSIX.

We do. We learned to do image convolution from analyzing insects brain structure.
We don't know the full structure of human brain, we can't map it. But internal working of each tiny part of brain, neurons and their connections, we understand well.

>We do understand it.

What is consciousness?

>He thinks the processes in the brain cannot be reduced to mathematics.

That's pretty sad

>thinks we can model consciousness...

Brain does not equal consciousness.
If you want to claim that not understanding consciousness means not understanding brain, you'd have to provide some evidence of that.

define "59^18"

In principle, it's possible. In practice, it's just too complex.

>thinks there's no link between the brain and counsciousness...

heh

The burden of proof is on you.

>in principle.

How can you model something you can't even define?

>We simply use the most complex technology of our age to explain something we don't understand.
And I would posit that with each rendition our attempts have gotten more accurate. Thing is we hadn't previously developed any sufficiently similar technology to correctly compare to the brain.

Von Neumann machine is just one model of a computer you retard
Fucking normies REEEEEEEE

It's not on me.

I talk about observing internal structure of the brain and imitating it.

You brought consciousness into discussion so it's up to you to demonstrate how it's related.

Brain is the hardware and consciousness is the software. The software influences how the hardware structure changes over time.

Does it violate the laws of physics? If not, then it's possible. Whether your dumb ass has the mental capacity or not is a different matter altogether.

>And I would posit that with each rendition our attempts have gotten more accurate.

Our technology for examining the brain has improved, that doesn't make your metaphor for the brain "correct".

That's just your wild speculation.

Brain is a neural network.

There is no notion of hardware and software in brain: internal parameters and connections between neurons are physical and define how the brain operates.

You're the one claming there's no distinction.

>Our technology for examining the brain has improved, that doesn't make your metaphor for the brain "correct".
No my other arguments make it correct, but my point was that past incorrect comparisons between the brain and technology doesn't mean this one is also false.

see

I am saying your claims about consciousness (which I never mentioned before in my posts) are unrelated to my reasoning about brain. There was no mention about consciousness from me, then you brought it up, and now you want me to prove there's no relation. No, user.

>Am I a computer?
No, you're not

Can the computer come up with algorithms to solve real world problems, or are they not first created by humans, only for the computer to calculate them over and over?

Regardless of your apparent misunderstanding of computers, even if both did math, doesn't mean they're both the same, that's an elementary philosophical mistake

See

> doesn't mean this one is also false.

The brain isn't a computer. This is evident when examining the brain. The brain is a"brain".

You're confusing metaphors with reality.

The map is not the territory.

>Can the computer come up with algorithms to solve real world problems
Yes. That's what it does with image recognition. The person builds a network of meaningless mathematical operations that produce no valuable results. Then the person demonstrates a lot of images along with labels, and the system tweaks its parameters to learn to label pictures correctly.

I'm gonna reply to myself because I can already imagine the responses

>Sure the computer can come up with algorithms! Machine learning bla bla [insert buzzword of something I have no clue about here]
Still, if the computer can come up with certain algorithms, that algorithm to create algorithms is created by humans first

ANYTHING A COMPUTER EVER HAS DONE, DOES, AND WILL DO, ALWAYS STARTS FROM A HUMAN BRAIN, TO SAY OTHERWISE IS TO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT A COMPUTER IS. END OF STORY.

>I am saying your claims about consciousness

You're side stepping, rather clumsily, a rather saliant aspect of the brain's functioning. Unless, you believe consciousness resides somewhere else in the body?

Or, do you believe a bain model is capable of consiousness?

>that algorithm to create algorithms is created by humans first
No. The algorithm to do image recognition were learned by the system by observing inputs. The conventional systems where humans write algorithms themselves are not neural networks.

Who says computers can't program other computers?

>Can the computer come up with algorithms to solve real world problems

It will be able to do that and a lot more in the future.

There is no answer about where the consciousness is. It is as likely to be anywhere in the body as in brain. We know nothing about it. We know about brain, though, about how neurons work and how to emulate them, which was what my posts were about. so don't bring up consciousness unless you can explain how it ties into my reasoning about emulating neural structure.

*sigh*

Who told the computer how to recognize humans? Who even knows what a human looks like, other than us?

We are still telling the computer what to do. Just because we've programmed it to teach itself, does NOT mean that it's suddenly conscious, all the self teaching is the result of our own idea of what the computer should do when the time comes to "teach itself"

No, but it was extremely painful

>Two hemispheres of the brain work together like duel core CPU's
>Central Cortex is like a mother board
>GPU for optics

A computer is an artificial brain except it only does what it is told

Who are you to say that humans are not told what to do by some unknown entity, just the same?

Those are still rules written by a computer. You must be arrogant to think that a computer works like a brain. You can try to play God all you want but you'll never be able to outperform his creation.

The theory that a brain is a computer is actually very sound.

It's called free will, dipshit.

Oh boy, here come the angry Christians and shit

Anybody can come up with a theory. Come back when you have facts.

The stupidity of this board is going to give me a heart attack someday

>No. The algorithm to do image recognition were learned by the system by observing inputs
Can the computer know what a tree is, without us first telling it? NO.

It doesn't even know what green is without us telling it first. It can tell you whether the bits and bytes between these 2 images match or not, but that is MEANINGLESS to us.

I never said it can't, but that amazing super awesome feature that might exist someday, will be created by humans!

>Ok computer, if you see other computer, do this to it!
>Idiots go: LOL ITS ALIVE OMG

You're a big guy

>evolution is just a theory.txt

Particles have free will too retard. It's called quantum physics.

Theories are supported by facts you fucking idiot. That's what gives a theory validity. Is everyone here fucking retarded now?

Brains and computers are made of particles.

Check and mate.

First of all, that is completely irrelevant to our discussion

Second, It's impossible to prove I'm not just a brain in the matrix right now, I have to trust my senses to know that I have free will. The same way I "just know" that rape and stealing are wrong.

It all comes back to us being made in the image of God, but let's not expand on that topic too much before some fedora wearing teenager gets triggered about it

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."
- Albert Einstein

That's what I'm saying. A computer is an artificial brain.

Sort of.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdala

>I have no idea what I'm talking about
Just... just.... REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

hmm

An aeroplane isn't an artificial bird.

My point was that why does it matter that those computers happened to originate with humans? If you use that to say that human brains aren't computers, that just begs the question, since if human brains are in fact computers, then there obviously are computers that weren't created in some sense by people.

>we still don't know how our own god damned brains work

21st century fucking sucks.

>per day
>20W / 300W

Look up the Double Slit Experiment retard. Particles have "free will." Just like everything else in the universe.

For you.