<div dir="ltr">On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 12:06 PM, spike <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:spike66@att.net" target="_blank">spike66@att.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"> > We want the computer to do far more than our brain is doing.</span></p>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes.<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">> We have about 1E11 brain cells</span></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br>
</div><div>And even with today's primitive technology we could pack about 10^10 transistors in the volume that just 2 of those neurons occupy, and the signals that transistors use move nearly a billion times faster than the signals brain cells use, and transistors keep getting better but brain cells don't; so I have a hunch who will ultimately win the battle between biology and electronics. <br>
<br></div><div> John K Clark<br></div></div><br></div></div>