A fairly close analogy is how teams of a competent chessplayer and a laptop chess program can beat both the best humans and computers with far more processing power.
The question is whether that team would more efficient if you give them a high functioning BCI. I’m not sure that’s true.
I read somewhere that Kasparov was considering three moves per second while deep blue considers billions.
If you consider a move and it takes a few seconds to enter it into a computer, as opposed to being read from your brain, a analysed, and a preliminary evaluation (enough to check that there are no obvious flaws) returning to your brain within milliseconds, then this seems like a several-fold speed up. True, its a quantitative not qualitative speedup, but then this is just a BCI capable of transmitting thoughts consisting of a few bytes.
I read somewhere that Kasparov was considering three moves per second while deep blue considers billions.
What exactly do you mean with the word “consider” in that sentence? I think your trivial idea of what it might mean isn’t accurate enough to be useful in a case like this.
If you consider a move and it takes a few seconds to enter it into a computer, as opposed to being read from your brain
The idea that reading something from the brain takes no time or effect from the brain to parse the thought in a readable way is inaccurate.
I think your trivial idea of what it might mean isn’t accurate enough to be useful in a case like this.
As a tangential point, this seems needlessly aggressive and presumptive. I don’t think you can know whether or not I understand cognitive neuroscience based on one paragraph I have written.
There nothing meant to be aggressive in sentence. I might have removed the word “you” but trivial is a pretty accurate word.
The word consider might be straightforward when you speak about someone’s subjective experience about what he’s doing but it’s not straightforward if you speak about the behavior of billions of neurons.
When solving a go life and death problem I might have only a conscious experience of ‘considering’ 2 moves per second but that doesn’t mean that my brain isn’t effectively analysing many more positions and only brings the interesting one’s up to the level of conscious awareness. If you look at the amount of positions a computer has to go through to solve a go life and death problem that’s the best explanation of how humans can effectively solve life and death problems that effectively take millions or billions of moves.
I don’t think you can know whether or not I understand cognitive neuroscience based on one paragraph I have written.
Your post indicates that you can simply transfer a notion of “consider” that we use in daily life to describing the behavior of large amounts of neurons where we are not conscious of what most of the neurons in our head are doing.
Trivial is simply the accurate word for describing a daily life notion of a word.
What exactly do you mean with the word “consider” in that sentence? I think your trivial idea of what it might mean isn’t accurate enough to be useful in a case like this.
Well, I didn’t personally interview Kasparov so I don’t know any more than you do about what the article I read meant by ‘consider’ although it seems like a fairly unambiguous word to me. Simply tabooing every word in a discussion isn’t necessary helpful, it can simply slow the conversion down.
The idea that reading something from the brain takes no time or effect from the brain to parse the thought in a readable way is inaccurate.
Why should this require any extra effort on the part of the brain? Surely if you can read the relevant area of the brain, and have the computing power and understanding of neuroscience required, then any thought is readable. Are you a neuroscientist?
Surely if you can read the relevant area of the brain, and have the computing power and understanding of neuroscience required, then any thought is readable.
There no way you read billions of neurons accurately at the same time. That just not feasible.
The thing you can do is reading a bunch of neurons or reading a signal that aggregates the activity of a bunch of neurons.
Why should this require any extra effort on the part of the brain?
Nearly all BCI designs that are used in the real world take effort. A bunch of them even have a learning curve.
Are you a neuroscientist?
Depending how on wide you define the term. I have set in university course on neuroscience that discussed BCI’s.
The question is whether that team would more efficient if you give them a high functioning BCI. I’m not sure that’s true.
I’d guess it’d make very little difference in ‘regular’ chess but it would help somewhat in bullet chess.
I read somewhere that Kasparov was considering three moves per second while deep blue considers billions. If you consider a move and it takes a few seconds to enter it into a computer, as opposed to being read from your brain, a analysed, and a preliminary evaluation (enough to check that there are no obvious flaws) returning to your brain within milliseconds, then this seems like a several-fold speed up. True, its a quantitative not qualitative speedup, but then this is just a BCI capable of transmitting thoughts consisting of a few bytes.
What exactly do you mean with the word “consider” in that sentence? I think your trivial idea of what it might mean isn’t accurate enough to be useful in a case like this.
The idea that reading something from the brain takes no time or effect from the brain to parse the thought in a readable way is inaccurate.
As a tangential point, this seems needlessly aggressive and presumptive. I don’t think you can know whether or not I understand cognitive neuroscience based on one paragraph I have written.
There nothing meant to be aggressive in sentence. I might have removed the word “you” but trivial is a pretty accurate word.
The word consider might be straightforward when you speak about someone’s subjective experience about what he’s doing but it’s not straightforward if you speak about the behavior of billions of neurons.
When solving a go life and death problem I might have only a conscious experience of ‘considering’ 2 moves per second but that doesn’t mean that my brain isn’t effectively analysing many more positions and only brings the interesting one’s up to the level of conscious awareness. If you look at the amount of positions a computer has to go through to solve a go life and death problem that’s the best explanation of how humans can effectively solve life and death problems that effectively take millions or billions of moves.
Your post indicates that you can simply transfer a notion of “consider” that we use in daily life to describing the behavior of large amounts of neurons where we are not conscious of what most of the neurons in our head are doing.
Trivial is simply the accurate word for describing a daily life notion of a word.
Well, I didn’t personally interview Kasparov so I don’t know any more than you do about what the article I read meant by ‘consider’ although it seems like a fairly unambiguous word to me. Simply tabooing every word in a discussion isn’t necessary helpful, it can simply slow the conversion down.
Why should this require any extra effort on the part of the brain? Surely if you can read the relevant area of the brain, and have the computing power and understanding of neuroscience required, then any thought is readable. Are you a neuroscientist?
There no way you read billions of neurons accurately at the same time. That just not feasible. The thing you can do is reading a bunch of neurons or reading a signal that aggregates the activity of a bunch of neurons.
Nearly all BCI designs that are used in the real world take effort. A bunch of them even have a learning curve.
Depending how on wide you define the term. I have set in university course on neuroscience that discussed BCI’s.