Brain and image rendering

[dxcxdzv]

I don't know why I start rambling on VT all of a sudden. I used on some debate forums to spawn random threads about whatever comes to my mind, putting aside bullshits if possible.

Well, if you live in your head like me you probably quickly start to imagine lots of things and wonder about the actual processing power of the brain.

If I ask you to imagine a segment, one dimension, black on white background. Now bow this segment, as you want, like... do a circle bow (if translation error ===> I'm referring to a random part of a circle, simply).
This wasn't too difficult huh?

Now ask a computer, it will probably be able to do it, but it will need to process a certain amount of information in order to represent this figure on screen. If I give you a pen and a sheet and ask you to process all the information the computer has been through you'd probably take a hell of a time.
Still, your brain successfully managed to make this figure, and it wasn't really hard.

How have you have managed to represent consciously a geometric figure without "consciously" processing all the information?
This would mean you're actually processing in a different way - a damn more efficient way - or that you're unconsciously making the figure and are able to represent it consciously. Or both
In any case, congrats, you got a damn ass cool super power.

However this does not mean you're actually better than a computer when it comes to geometric figures (I'm not generalizing to processing information as a all).
If I ask you to imagine a point, then another nearby, connected by a segment and then I ask you to exponentially increase the number of points and connections. It gets harder huh? Still, you can go pretty far like that, the human brain is fantastic.

And if, now, I ask you to take a point randomly to create an impulsion that goes to another point, and if we add impulsions etc. Can you still follow them? It immediately gets harder, however a computer won't have any problem with doing that.

So, these impulsions, did you process them consciously or unconsciously? Obviously you had to be aware of any of their position at any moment.
When you dream you are able to process incredibly more complicated figures, and, generally, you are able to imagine any object of a more or less realistic manner thanks to training and/or gift.

So what? Are you telling me you can imagine a car moving in a street but can't imagine a simple impulsion circuit?
This is actually what happens when you start to wonder about details, if I ask you the colour of the car, its matriculation etc I start adding details and thus variables that your brain has to process.

By imagining something our brain gives us more the illusion of details rather than trying to process realistic figures. You think you bowed that segment but if I start asking you any detail about it like an approximation of the angle (the angle defined by the two bounds of the segment plus the origin point of the circle it describes, remember I asked you to imagine a circle bow) it will immediately be more difficult for you and eventually you will give up imagining the figure.

The brain can't actually realistically imagine a figure, it can give a global approximated shape (most of the time accurate enough) but it's only once you start seriously think about it that you realize the processing power needed to really imagine it.

Our brain is surely at a all different level on this point, as computers need 0 and 1s until the very last one to realize a figure, but it literally can't visualize beyond a certain accuracy.

This is the kind of subjects obsessing me as I am a visualization freak.
Here is a funny example. Imagine a chess board, what is the colour in E8?
What is the actual size of the white queen piece?

Concretely our brain can't beat a computer when it comes to concrete image rendering, even if we have a lot more powerful talents like the capacity to imagine in itself.
Let's be clear, I'm not talking here about visual stimuli or any sort of weird telekinesis but of processing data in order to render an image.
ROTW is almost always about social and economic debates, I wanted to bring something a bit different, though I understand that this is not as attractive as the 999,999th VT debate on gun control in the US.

Also, history side, Nikola Tesla was imagining his experiments before doing them, he was then able render in his brain a realistic copy of the experiment and to predict the outcome before really doing it.

So next time you imagine something, start wondering about details, with a bit of chance this will drive you crazy.

------------

You could say that the brain unconsciously make the figure and that the dimensions have a certain value (if you imagine a table and a chair you can say that the table is approximately that large compared to the chair, however the value gave at the moment that you imagine is perhaps fixed in your brain by a random set of chemical transmitters, however this value is likely to be very instable as if you re-imagine the figure a second after the table may look larger or tighter in your mind).
However how does this value is transmitted to your "conscious part" without the fact that you actually know it?

This is doubly interesting as we actually don't know how this mechanism works, we can only have this far some guesses by our own empirical experiences.

[Vlerchan]

[...] you got a damn ass cool super power.

That I am an aphatasiac means I can't do this at all, as I believe I've mentioned before.

Literally can't picture a single thing in my head.

[Flapjack]

I have actually thought about this before myselfXD Very interesting buddy but I am not sure where the debate is? If I am supposed to contest it, I agree with yaXD

[dxcxdzv]

That I am an aphatasiac means I can't do this at all, as I believe I've mentioned before.

Literally can't picture a single thing in my head.
I know.
And to be frank this actually disturbed me a bit when I was writing this post.

I have actually thought about this before myselfXD Very interesting buddy but I am not sure where the debate is? If I am supposed to contest it, I agree with yaXD
As I said I wanted to bring something a bit different regarding the often redundant debates here (for the most popular ones).
The aim is not to confront a "agree" and "don't agree" but rather to discuss about it, if you already thought about it you surely have something to say, like about how you represent things in your mind.
Also, as said in my op, this is a largely understudied field of neurosciences.
I believe there is also plenty of things to say about the analogy with computers and to a greater extent the differences of mechanism between them.

[Ghaem]

The world of the brain has its own legends.

[Porpoise101]

Hmm, you say that the brain is better than a computer. I disagree. The brain takes a lot of energy to sustain, it isn't as efficient I think.

[dxcxdzv]

Hmm, you say that the brain is better than a computer. I disagree. The brain takes a lot of energy to sustain, it isn't as efficient I think.
You should read my post again. I didn't say the brain is superior.

Concerning the energy used by the brain I advice you to check the number of KW necessary to run a supercomputer.

[jamie_n5]

I really like your post. It is very interesting and thought provoking. I also agree with you.

[Uniquemind]

Like I said, this is partially the reason I consider the human body more machine like, rather than some high pedestal concept of "personhood".

All AI theoretical technology, seems to be inspired by our own selves anyway.

[sqishy]

I've delayed replying to this for reason of having a clearer mind, I prefer doing the threads I'm most interested in, last.


Well, if you live in your head like me you probably quickly start to imagine lots of things and wonder about the actual processing power of the brain.

It's good to know that we are not alone like this.



How have you have managed to represent consciously a geometric figure without "consciously" processing all the information?
This would mean you're actually processing in a different way - a damn more efficient way - or that you're unconsciously making the figure and are able to represent it consciously. Or both
In any case, congrats, you got a damn ass cool super power.

We process it in a different way I feel, yes. It is very powerful indeed, but powerful in its efficiency to deal with information in the context of continuing to live in the environment, as that is how we understand human (as well as all non-human) physiology to be.



So, these impulsions, did you process them consciously or unconsciously? Obviously you had to be aware of any of their position at any moment.
When you dream you are able to process incredibly more complicated figures, and, generally, you are able to imagine any object of a more or less realistic manner thanks to training and/or gift.

So what? Are you telling me you can imagine a car moving in a street but can't imagine a simple impulsion circuit?
This is actually what happens when you start to wonder about details, if I ask you the colour of the car, its matriculation etc I start adding details and thus variables that your brain has to process.

By imagining something our brain gives us more the illusion of details rather than trying to process realistic figures. You think you bowed that segment but if I start asking you any detail about it like an approximation of the angle (the angle defined by the two bounds of the segment plus the origin point of the circle it describes, remember I asked you to imagine a circle bow) it will immediately be more difficult for you and eventually you will give up imagining the figure.

The brain can't actually realistically imagine a figure, it can give a global approximated shape (most of the time accurate enough) but it's only once you start seriously think about it that you realize the processing power needed to really imagine it.

Our brain is surely at a all different level on this point, as computers need 0 and 1s until the very last one to realize a figure, but it literally can't visualize beyond a certain accuracy.

This is the kind of subjects obsessing me as I am a visualization freak.
Here is a funny example. Imagine a chess board, what is the colour in E8?
What is the actual size of the white queen piece?

Concretely our brain can't beat a computer when it comes to concrete image rendering, even if we have a lot more powerful talents like the capacity to imagine in itself.
Let's be clear, I'm not talking here about visual stimuli or any sort of weird telekinesis but of processing data in order to render an image.

I see it that our brains can visualise very specific details at a time, but for larger details the smaller detail level is 'sacrificed' as a compromise. The brain has a comparatively very small 'frame of conscious present perception', compared to the magnitude/complexity of the objects we mentally work with and create over time.



ROTW is almost always about social and economic debates, I wanted to bring something a bit different, though I understand that this is not as attractive as the 999,999th VT debate on gun control in the US.

This this this! While I'm alright with talking about things in the 'human realm', I don't understand why there is so little interest in non-human/humanity stuff in comparison.

Personally I don't see either as being more important than the other, and/but I see it as not a good thing for present society to have much more focus on certain workings within itself and within the frame of usual human psychology, than the 'greater world' setting it is in. At the least, talking about how we think is going in a good direction.



Also, history side, Nikola Tesla was imagining his experiments before doing them, he was then able render in his brain a realistic copy of the experiment and to predict the outcome before really doing it.

So next time you imagine something, start wondering about details, with a bit of chance this will drive you crazy.

Being relatively crazy is a side effect of thinking outside the usual frames of life, I feel. Might as well go with it.



You could say that the brain unconsciously make the figure and that the dimensions have a certain value (if you imagine a table and a chair you can say that the table is approximately that large compared to the chair, however the value gave at the moment that you imagine is perhaps fixed in your brain by a random set of chemical transmitters, however this value is likely to be very instable as if you re-imagine the figure a second after the table may look larger or tighter in your mind).
However how does this value is transmitted to your "conscious part" without the fact that you actually know it?

With the 'frame of present conscious perception' I said before, I see the information to be mostly processed in a subconscious way. Even our scope of concentration in any moment is smaller than the whole set of all 'raw' sense+mental perception (qualia, if you know of the term) we get, so even that is practically subconscious for us, though any part of it could be concentrated on in theory.



This is doubly interesting as we actually don't know how this mechanism works, we can only have this far some guesses by our own empirical experiences.

While I have great hope that we are getting places with this, I see founding theories/speculations that are tested, to greatly influence how we see the result. I mean that certain experimental information for e.g. a physicalist and a mind-body dualist, could confirm both ideas.

That said, are you a physicalist in this topic? (wondering)

- - - - - - - -

That I am an aphatasiac means I can't do this at all, as I believe I've mentioned before.

Literally can't picture a single thing in my head.

Can you imagine sounds, or taste sensations, by extension?
Hope that you can perceive your thoughts/imaginings in any way, rather than not at all. I guess it doesn't make a difference to you overall, as that is all you have ever known, but still.

- - - - - - - -

The brain takes a lot of energy to sustain, it isn't as efficient I think.

What is the efficiency qualified as for you?

[dxcxdzv]

I see it that our brains can visualise very specific details at a time, but for larger details the smaller detail level is 'sacrificed' as a compromise. The brain has a comparatively very small 'frame of conscious present perception', compared to the magnitude/complexity of the objects we mentally work with and create over time.
The faster you think, the longer you live.
By that I mean that there was (is?) no real point in equipping the brain with an hardcore graphics card, we probably have been limited to "what's enough to survive".

With the 'frame of present conscious perception' I said before, I see the information to be mostly processed in a subconscious way. Even our scope of concentration in any moment is smaller than the whole set of all 'raw' sense+mental perception (qualia, if you know of the term) we get, so even that is practically subconscious for us, though any part of it could be concentrated on in theory.

Yeah but the funny thing is that, unconsciously, values aren't fixed, they change. And if they change it probably means that there is a certain volatility of information in our brain, i.e. in our brain when thinking twice of an object it is not exactly the same process that is repeated.
The fact that our perception of things is not fixed is mysterious and very interesting, in the fact that neurons or groups of neurons don't act as mechanically as we might think they act.

While I have great hope that we are getting places with this, I see founding theories/speculations that are tested, to greatly influence how we see the result. I mean that certain experimental information for e.g. a physicalist and a mind-body dualist, could confirm both ideas.
Theories and speculations always influence us.

That said, are you a physicalist in this topic? (wondering)
I found the english definition weird, but according to the French, if "physicalism" means the belief that everything can be described by physics, I'd say no. Because that would presume that everything I actually know is a valid basis to consider everything that there is - that way.
However if by that you mean that my "thinking ground" is based on the idea that we can potentially describe everything in a physical way and that so it should be the prior way of thinking when it comes to examine something, then yes.
Also, because personally I found the other ways... kinda bullshit and so irrelevant, even if I know little in these "other" ways.

But to answer your question, yes I am.

[Porpoise101]

Concerning the energy used by the brain I advice you to check the number of KW necessary to run a supercomputer.
Yes, I actually checked the numbers. The human brain is far more efficient. At about 20 W, a comparable supercomputer would need a few megawatts to run. The reason I brought it up was because I read that the human brain is quite inefficient with its energy usage compared to other 'intelligent animals'. Imagine if the brain was souped up to the max, we could be so much more powerful cognitively.

[sqishy]

The faster you think, the longer you live.

Quite so.



By that I mean that there was (is?) no real point in equipping the brain with an hardcore graphics card, we probably have been limited to "what's enough to survive".

Arguably we (as a species) have done a sort of glitch in Darwinian evolution, in creating and using technology to massively change the environment we are in. We may be essentially thinking in a greatest-efficiency way, but the ideas we think are not necessarily so. Most of the ideas we have are not, at least directly, related to basic continuation of our physical existence.



Yeah but the funny thing is that, unconsciously, values aren't fixed, they change. And if they change it probably means that there is a certain volatility of information in our brain, i.e. in our brain when thinking twice of an object it is not exactly the same process that is repeated.
The fact that our perception of things is not fixed is mysterious and very interesting, in the fact that neurons or groups of neurons don't act as mechanically as we might think they act.

Agreed, nothing is ever repeated to us. If such a thought were to be, it would to us be still only one thought with no repetition. Even being aware of a repeating thought means that memory has been recalled during the repeats, necessarily having us perceive the repeats differently to the original.



Theories and speculations always influence us.

Such is out mental touchiness :D .



I found the english definition weird, but according to the French, if "physicalism" means the belief that everything can be described by physics, I'd say no. Because that would presume that everything I actually know is a valid basis to consider everything that there is - that way.

I get you.



However if by that you mean that my "thinking ground" is based on the idea that we can potentially describe everything in a physical way and that so it should be the prior way of thinking when it comes to examine something, then yes.
Also, because personally I found the other ways... kinda bullshit and so irrelevant, even if I know little in these "other" ways.

But to answer your question, yes I am.

Alright.


Yes, I actually checked the numbers. The human brain is far more efficient. At about 20 W, a comparable supercomputer would need a few megawatts to run.

The thing is though, the human brain fundamentally works differently to all / nearly all supercomputers (and 'non-super' computers too), least I argue so. Are we justified in comparing the efficiency of two processes which are fundamentally different? I see it like comparing the efficiency between a diesel car and a hydrogen car. The efficiency needs to be of a certain task that both have in common. What is this certain task in your eyes?

As example of the brain-computer differences, the human brain cannot be turned off. Turning the brain off is the same as killing the brain, unless some technology is summoned so as to do reversible cryonics on the brain. There are more examples worth some thought, but these alone are important here.



The reason I brought it up was because I read that the human brain is quite inefficient with its energy usage compared to other 'intelligent animals'. Imagine if the brain was souped up to the max, we could be so much more powerful cognitively.

If you are referring to the massive energy demands of the human brain, then it seems quite alright taking the complexity and power of the human brain relative to most other animals. I don't see a problem worth fixing here as such, though by all means it is worth investigating anyway if we can hack into making more use out of the human brain.