That's a cope out. you don't understand yourself.
its a *cop* out, and its apparent only you are copping out as you should see I DID explain it.
It would still be conscious... just slow.
conciousness requires thought on multiple levels, while I guess you could be correct in that it would think and then store in working memory, you would have to have several terrabytes of RAM to get it to work at the speeds you're talking about.
But again, more importantly you're making claims you're not qualified to make.
I'm plenty more qualified than you are.
which isnt much, but its something.
Assuming that just because we don't understand something now that we'll never understand it is not credible.
assuming that our brains are too primitive to understand their higher level function is plenty credible
its
debateable, but its not me calling on "divine explanation", there are plenty of neuroscientists quoted saying "if the brain was so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldnt" etc.
Prove that
prove what??? thats common knowledge! if you dont know the wave property of matter I dont know why you can consider ME non-credible
Under current tech the only downside has been heat production which at some point will force us to abandon silicon semiconductors for CPUs in favor of optical computers or something else that generates less heat
its the
current issue, but its not the only issue we will ever encounter. thats a foolish thought
In addition it must be noted that our brains are very slow. What makes our brains powerful is millions of parallel processors all operating rather slowly all at once.
yes, but collectively we outprocess any computer ever constructed.
The brain does not include the power supply unit...
oh, so our neurons dont have Mitochondria? thats news to me!
Well, if the computer's processors are faster then it should require fewer of them to achieve the same calculative power. Ergo if anything we should be able to make it smaller.
again, they would only be able to function on a few problems at once, and simply the time spent switching in and out of problems to immitate a parrallel processor would go beyond what our brains take to accomplish the same task.
The machine could be the size of a planet and my point wouldn't be effected
yes it would, as simply the time taken to move data to one point from another (let alone back and forth from Japan to Britain over and over) would give our brains the upper hand.
It's been solid for more then 80
we havent had computers for 80 years! we've had them for barely over 60! and for that fact the law was developed only 20 years ago, so its credibility is hardly anything near solid.
Exaggerating doesn't make you sound credible it makes you sound petty.
I'm not exaggerating, its exactly what you're saying.
but even if we take a step back your point wont hold because there are still various problems that develop WELL before then.
anyway, you seem to have allowed yourself to get all emotional again...
I'm not being emotional, you're using a classical ad hominem ploy to avoid something you cannot counteract.
you just simply cannot hold an argument because you call on unqualified points and "laws" that hold no credibility beyond the VERY short term, of which our argument extends far beyond.
how about you come back in 48 hours when you have a valid point? because I dont see one here.
That said, quantum computers will have "parts" that are smaller then an atom
besides the obvious point that everything has parts smaller than an atom... you and I are talking computers, not quantum computers (which are a very different subject)
