/int/ - International

> biologist take on computer topics it's an interesting reversal, usually it's the computer scientists being overconfident about someone else's field > the ‘‘outer’’ brain handles fast high-dimensional sensory and motor > signals, whereas the ‘‘inner’’ brain processes the reduced few bits needed to control behavior this kind of thing is called a mainframe you can have a CPU in there that's not obviously faster than a PC CPU but the overall thing can be much more powerful because you handle the IO where the data is and thus don't have to ship everything to the CPU downside is the complexity cost is high but evolution doesn't really care about that

Consciousness is a conductor of a brain orchestra, tying its subsystems together into something coherent. The brain is the player of the game, you're its aimbot, the attention focus subsystem. You're a software running on hardware that still works without you. Sleepwalkers are not conscious, for example, but can still got to the fridge and make a sandwich, they just do it badly and uncoordinated.

also on a philosophical level it's pretty dumb to equate the CPU to the whole box, it's not even true for PCs but especially not for an architecture where all the interesting stuff happens in the peripherals > It is a popular belief that some people can memorize an entire page of text from a short glimpse and then recall it as though they were reading an internal photograph. Unfortunately, evidence for photographic or eidetic memory is weak at best. If such people existed, they would sweep the medals in worldwide memory contests, such as ‘‘Binary Digits.’’ Instead, the world champions continue to clock in at a measly 10 bits/s. I used to be able to do that but I lost it some time before I turned 10, which handily explains why I didn't turn up to competitions

> Musk decided to do some- > thing about the problem and create a direct interface between > his brain and a computer to communicate at his unfettered > rate: ‘‘From a long-term existential standpoint, that’s, like, the > purpose of Neuralink, to create a high-bandwidth interface to > the brain such that we can be symbiotic with AI,’’ he said. > ‘‘Because we have a bandwidth problem. You just can’t commu- > nicate through your fingers. It’s just too slow.’’ > Based on the research reviewed here regarding the rate of hu- > man cognition, we predict that Musk’s brain will communicate > with the computer at about 10 bits/s. Instead of the bundle of > Neuralink electrodes, Musk could just use a telephone, whose > data rate has been designed to match human language, which, > in turn, is matched to the speed of perception and cognition. this is also a bad and really incurious take yes you'll run into the central processing limit but you'll still get on the order of 1kB/s into the brain and it will be the brain's job to make sense of it and distill it down, which means it can be used for things that are much more interesting than pure language, such as motor control (bypassing what they call the 'inner brain')