brain vs computer

The brain is still the overall winner in many fields when it comes to numbers. However, because of its other commitments, the brain is less efficient when a person tries to use it for one specific function. The brain is as we can put it, a general purpose processor when compared to the computer. It therefore loses out when it comes to efficiency and performance. The estimate for total human performance is at 100 million MIPS (Million computer Instructions Per Second) , but the level of efficiency for which this can be applied to any task may only be a small fraction of the total. (this fraction depends on the adaptibilty of the brain to the task) Deep Blue, the chess machine that bested world chess champion Garry Kasparov in 1997, used specialized chips to process chess moves at a the speed equivalent to a 3 million MIPS universal computer. This is 1/30 of the estimate for total human performance. Since it is plausible that Kasparov, probably the best human player ever, can apply his brain power to the strange problems of chess with an efficiency of 1/30, Deep Blue's near parity with Kasparov's chess skill supports the theory of the level of efficiency of total performance. ( Garry Kasparov beat Deep Blue with a very close, 2 -1 )

I don't know where you got your info, but it is very wrong. I remember working with computers where I have actually found thing in an encyclopedia before the computer was able to locate what it was looking for...of course this is going back to the 70's time frame but those dinosaurs are still around in museums somewhere. As for being slow, I have come up with answers in my head faster then I have seen computers and calculators calculate. You should re-examine your sources.

You really can't compare the human brain to computers in such terms. First, you can't say the human brain is 60 times faster than all the computers of the world combined. The average human brain can not do an equation like (93*267/6+18/972) 60 times faster than a computer. In fact, the vast majority of people can't even do it in their heads. Storage space being compared to a pile of paper sheets is also nonsensical. Fully written on, from the surface of the earch reaching out of the solar system? Who came up with that? You go ahead, find every book you can and start stacking. See if there's enough to even escape our atmosphere. Now think to yourself, is there any human on the planet that knows everything written in those books? RAM and virtual memory are not the same thing. By saying they are, you show a lack of computer knowledge. RAM is not used to retrieve information. It is used to store information temporarily so that it can be accessed faster than the hard drive would allow. Now, acknowledging that your entire statement was ignorant, read the first and last sentences, leaving out the rest. In your first sentence you make the ridiculous claim that the human brain is 60 times faster blah blah blah. Your last sentence claims our RAM (something the human brain doesn't have), is slower than the slowest computer on the earth. So which is it? Are we 60 times faster, or slower than the slowest computer? For the record, I've seen old computers and adding machines that do mathematical calculations slower than a human, so under no circumstances is the human brain slower than the slowest computer on the earth.