The Differences Between Human Brain and Computer

Introduction

People have compared the brain to different inventions. The most common invention that the brain is compared to is a computer. Over 30 years ago, TV shows from The Jetsons to Star Trek suggested that by the millennium’s end computers would read, talk, recognize, walk, converse, think, and maybe even feel. However, in general we still don’t talk to our computers, cars, or houses, and they don’t talk to us. The idea that computers are incredibly clever is changing, as when computers enter human specialties like conversation, many people find them stupid than smart, as any “conversation” with a computer help can illustrate.

Humans and computers inhibit one and the same world in which they seem to be existing in symbiosis. Computers need people in order to be created in the first place, while people need computers in order to evolve. The process of media, banking, electricity as well as other means of transportation depends on technology. The more advanced it is, the more advanced they are in return. Just think of the modern-day cars which are basically computers on wheels. Without innovative software projects and dozens of sensitive electronic brain-like-functioning components, the automotive sector wouldn’t have been as successful as it is now. But computers are not integrated in the structure of vehicles only.

Computers are extremely fast, so when a task can be translated into an algorithm, a computer will typically accomplish it much more quickly and accurately than the average human. This kind of task includes mathematical calculations, and also repetitive tasks that humans quickly get bored by. However, people quickly recognize familiar faces but computers still cannot recognize known terrorist faces at airport check-in. Advanced computers struggle with skills most 5 years olds have already mastered, like speaking, reading, conversing, and running:

As yet, no computer-controlled robot could begin to compete with even a young child in preforming some of the simplest of everyday activities: such as recognizing that a coloured crayon lying on the floor at the other end of the room Is what is needed to complete a drawing, walking across to collect that crayon, and then putting it to us. For that matter, even the capabilities of an ant, in performing its everyday activities, would far surpass what can be activated by the most sophisticated of today’s computer control system.

That computers cannot even compete with an ant, with its minute silver of a brain, is surprising. I suggest this is from processing design, not processing incapacity. If computers still struggle with 5 years old skill, what about what children learn after five, while “growing up?” The Robot World Cup aim to transform current clumsy robot shuffles into soccer brilliance by 2050.

The computer as we know it today had its beginning with a 19th century English mathematics professor name Charles Babbage. He designed the analytical engine and it was design that the basic framework of the computers of today are based on. In 1937 the first electronic digital computer was built by Dr John V. Atanasoff and Clifford berry. It was called the Atanasoff-Berry Computer. Atanasoff and his graduate, Clifford Berry, design a computer that can solve 29 equations simultaneously. Computers of this generation could only perform single task, and they had no operating system. In 1951 the first computer for commercial use was introduced to the public; the Universal Automatic Computer (UNIVAC 1). During this time computers had memory and operating system. In 1980 Microsoft Disk Operating System (MS-Dos) was born and in 1981 IBM introduced the personal computer (PC) for home and office use.

As a result of the various improvements to the development of the computer we have seen the computer being used in all areas of our life. It is very useful tool that will continue to experience new development as time passes.

For the most part, it is viewed as that PCs, machines as well as robots will in the long run reach, or even surpass human knowledge. This thought is bolstered by numerous advances in man-man brainpower (man-made intelligence). Will PCs truly defeat human knowledge? What does human knowledge mean? PCs as of now surpass human algorithmic estimations, among numerous others. In actuality, one alternative to conquer human capacities may be a psychological framework totally extraordinary to the human-centric sci-fi see. As it will show later, this sort of PC may defeat a few, however not every single, human capacity. That is the reason; one position could guarantee that it isn’t important to accept PCs like cerebrums to conquer human capacities. It is an admirable sentiment; in any case, with this sort of PC beat human cerebrum just in a normal algorithmic way or additionally an enthusiastic one? With this sort of PC have the option to move superior to us, to make superior to us, to feel much improved and like us? Else, it will never conquer human capacities. One explanation is on the grounds that piece of being human is to have passionate conduct, to have the option to move, make, and so forth, furthermore to our obviously judicious conduct. Truth be told, passionate conduct may be increasingly significant for a definition of person than objective conduct. As it was referenced over, the main issue develops: what does individual mean? It is beyond the realm of imagination thinking to beat human capacities on the off chance that it is not comprehended what it is to be a human and which capacities should be survived. As a matter of fact, current executions of feelings in machines depend on an intelligent, calculable and deterministic way, forgetting about fundamental attributes of feelings, for example, that feelings meddle with discerning procedures and ideal choices. Truth be told, these executions depend on the possibility that feelings play a significant job in turning out to be people progressively productive, objectively talking , when psychological false notions are appearing the opposite and probes neuroscience from the called default neural system, which is connected with self-situated data, are proposing hostile to corresponded subsystems of data handling which meddle between them.

The perspective on PC non-like-mind couldn't care less about this and accept knowledge as it were objective, rationale and calculable ability; or even most noticeably terrible, the issue of PC non-like-cerebrums safeguards is to feel that a few properties of life could be imitated without the unmistakable properties of being alive. With the end goal of this work, we should expect that there is sure arrangement of 'individual' properties and it is conceivable to choose when a creature or machine reach or not the condition to be a piece of this set, in any event, when it is realized that the meaning of this set is one of the most dubious and discussed issues.

Somehow or another, human memory and PC memory are comparative. For instance, some broad qualities of human transient’s memory take after those of a PC’s arbitrary access memory (Smash). Human transient memory is unstable and has a restricted limit. PC Smash has basically similar qualities. Your PC regularly needs more memory to run certain projects, and when you turn it off, bye-bye information.

Your drawn-out memory is something like a PC’s hard drive. Both of them take more time to react, however can store an extensive amount of information.

In any case, this last similarity self-destructs when you analyse the manners in which that a PC and your own mind store data. When snippets of data are recorded on a PC’s hard drive, that won’t transform the slightest bit throughout the years. Be that as it may, your recollections are entirely unexpected. Throughout the years, they will be consistently modified and recreated in light of changes in your dispositions or passing perspectives.

Another distinction is that on a hard drive, each snippet of data is spared in a particular area, despite the fact that a few records might be divided into a few sections when they are first put away. Conversely, albeit any of your recollections unquestionably includes the movement of explicit neurons, you can recover it by enacting only a bit of the system of neurons where it was encoded. Similarly, some random neuron can assist with encoding various recollections by taking an interest in a wide range of neural systems.

1. The mind utilizes synthetic substances to transmit data; the PC utilizes power. Despite the fact that electrical signs travel at high speeds in the sensory system, they travel significantly quicker through the wires in a PC.
2. Computer memory develops by including PC chips. Recollections in the mind develop by more grounded synaptic associations.
3. The human cerebrum has tipped the scales at around 3 pounds for about the most recent 100,000 years. PCs have developed a lot quicker than the human cerebrum. PCs have been around for just a couple of decades, yet quick innovative headways have made PCs quicker, littler and all the more remarkable.
4. The cerebrum needs supplements like oxygen and sugar for power; the PC needs power to continue working.

Conclusion

To attempt to plan PCs to do everything that individuals do appears to be both superfluous and unfortunate, as PCs are not liable for their demonstrations. In the human-PC relationship individuals are, and should be, the senior accomplice. A correction appears to be required in innovative work, to move from technology focused registering to human focused processing. The eventual fate of registering lies in recognizing huge human exercises and planning PC frameworks to bolster them. We need not PC greatness, yet human-PC greatness.

At last, there is no unmistakable champ generally speaking. Individuals and PCs have their own points of interest, contingent upon the classification. In the event that you need accuracy and crude handling speed, a PC is the reasonable decision. In the event that you need innovativeness, vitality effectiveness, and prioritization, a human is your most solid option.

References

• https://itspsychology.com/memory-human-memory/
• https://www.crucial.com/blog/technology/how-does-the-human-brain-compare-to-a-computer
• https://www.ukessays.com/essays/psychology/human-and-computer-information-processing-psychology-essay.php
• https://safebytes.com/brains-different-computers/
• https://www.livescience.com/20718-computer-history.html
• https://www.bgosoftware.com/blog/humans-vs-computers-similarities-loading-now-part-i/
• https://amp.businessinsider.com/how-brains-computers-are-different-2016-6
• https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frobt.2018.00121/full
• https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/computer-intellectual-ability1.htm
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/03/02/how-powerful-is-the-human-brain-compared-to-a-computer/#5ed47920628e
• https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bvc.html
• https://www.leydesdorff.net/vonneumann/