Human Brain Clock Speed??

**win2kuser** · August 26th, 2003, 04:00 PM

Wow, imagine catching a computer virus, it would blow away having a simple cold

Of course we would all have to have a firewall embedded in our brains otherwise other people would be able to read your thoughts, or could hack in and get you to do things...

**Redwolf** · August 26th, 2003, 04:13 PM

In 10 years, who knwos what would happen?

There are simply too many variables. There are many emerging technologies, and some that haven't been thought of yet. In due time, computers may just be little chips in our head that suppliment our brain. Or maybe we will have something newer and better than computers. Maybe computers themselves would be as obselete as wooden plows and vacuum tubes (the logic kind).

No one knows. However, I do see it to be quite feaseable to get an artificial intelegence machine. In a way we are already there. Computers today act much like bacterial colonies. They are independent, but part of a large group (the internet), only this bacterial colony is controlled. Within 10 years, at the rate technology is going, we may end up seeing the equivalent of multi-cellular organisms. We are definately a long, long way off from human-like intellegence, but science moves faster than nature...

**gambler2611** · August 26th, 2003, 04:15 PM

wouldnt we all become like that guy off starwars? it would be cool in a 'this is really stupid' kinda way cos u would just plug urself into a comp and play half-life without looking at a screen. You would be creeping round the house shooting imaginary bullets are your bro yelling 'WHY WONT YOU DIE!!!'

yeah anyways

andy

**nukes** · August 26th, 2003, 04:34 PM

The claim about the human eye not being able to see more than 30-40 fps is being misquoted here, the idea is that it can't differentiate between the still images, whereas if it was like 12fps, it would clearly be noticable as a slideshow of stills, if played at 50-60, the illusion works. Also, some monitor refresh rates can be misleading as they are interlaced, meaning that instead of drawing the next frame, it takes every other line from the two frames and superimposes them on top of each other. This is what TVs do, and why they only broadcast 25 frames/second (30 for NTSC sets, I'm in the UK, so I'm on PAL)

6) we all be running probley some kinda Bill Gates software that makes not think..LOl

yes, but obviously it would be running Linux, I mean, who would willingly put a peice of closed-source hardware/software into their heads? Also, imagine if it crashed lol.

but if they start messing about with real brain tissue as the brain/cpu of a robot/computer then yes, I think we will have to be very carefull at how far we let them go.

Thats something I can see happening, they've already got some system running in austrailia with 50000 or so rat neurons and its reported to be learning ok. Be afraid

!

**Jonty** · August 26th, 2003, 04:44 PM

Read somewhere that the human brain can only address 12 bytes at a time... or something like that.

**Computer** · August 26th, 2003, 07:52 PM

What are MIPS?

**SeanC** · August 26th, 2003, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by ShawnD1

Dude that would SUCK. It would mean people who actually work hard to learn things, like myself, would become useless. Jerks who just coast through life would be able to get white colar jobs! The entire system where geeks run the world would no longer be the case! Our countries would be run by the jerks from school who think they're cool because they drink beer behind the school and swear lots.

Good point, that's why if something like this were to happen, it could only be to get the basics of things.

Think of it this way, you get the upload of the basics of math, english, computers, science, etc... Then to actually be an expert you have to learn it without an upload.

Of course that would open up a black market I'm sure.

Sean

**muno** · August 27th, 2003, 02:52 AM

MIPS=Millions of Instructions Per Second
(used to measure cpu performance)

Shawnd:
Refresh rate and fps are different thing, aren't they.
-M

**ShawnD1** · August 27th, 2003, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by muno

Refresh rate and fps are different thing, aren't they.

Nope; same thing.

**muno** · August 27th, 2003, 08:12 AM

Ok, how can you then get eg. 200fps when the monitor is only capable of 100hz?
Or, a similar question, how can the refresh rate be different than fps. If you have refresh rate set to eg. 75, the image is drawn 75 times/second to the screen, how is it possible that you only get 20fps though? Does it draw the same image twice, or even trice?
-M

**ShawnD1** · August 27th, 2003, 06:31 PM

Yep, draws it as many times as it wants to, it will always run at 60 or 75 or whatever you set the monitor to. When the video card is faster than the monitor, it's just wasting power and you should turn the quality way up. When the monitor runs at 100 and the vid card is running at 230fps, you're not even seeing half of the drawn images.

Turn the video quality up until you can closely match the refresh rates.