COMPARISON BETWEEN A COMPUTER AND A HUMAN BEING

Computer Peripherals compared to Human Body

It has been noted that a computer has the main parts and peripherals. These parts and peripherals work together to make the computer perform tasks or solve a particular problem. The human body is composed of cells into tissues into organs then into systems. Same also implies a computer, it is all based on circuitry cells working in a logical way to make the computer a useful device to man. Just like the parts of our body are very important to us since they help us in doing our work and enable us to communicate with one another, the computer parts also aid communication process between the computer system itself and the user.

Similarities between the Parts

HEART vs Central Processing Unit (CPU): It controls every activities of the computer. Also responsible for the processing of data into information just like the heart pumping blood round the body.

BRAIN vs Random Access Memory (RAM): This stores data and information temporarily on a computer. It is also responsible for the starting up of a computer and running of programs. It's what a computer uses to remember things.

NERVOUS SYSTEM vs Motherboard: This is a printed panel of physical arrangement in a computer that contains the computer's basic circuitry and components. It's like a communication channel between every parts and components of the computer system.

BRAIN vs Hard Disk: This is a secondary storage on a computer used to back-up data and information. It is used to write information for future reference. You will agree with me that the human brain is incomparable.

MUSCLES vs BUS: This is a collection of wires through which data is transmitted from one part of a computer to another. It is also a communication system that transfers data between components inside a computer or between computers.

MOUTH vs Speaker/Printer: Both are output devices. They produce what the computer needs to give out.

HANDS vs Mouse/Keyboard: Both are input devices. They are used to send in instructions and information into the computer.

EYES vs Web cam: Web cam detects light and sends signals through the optic lens to the visual and the computer to the CPU. Just exactly like how the eyes works sending visual signals to the brain through optic nerves.

EARS vs Microphone: Microphone receives sound waves and sends it into the computer for processing. Ears are used for recognition.

FACE vs Monitor: This is an output device. It has a screen which it uses to display what the computer is doing or how it feels. Just like the human face shows different expressions.

SKIN vs System Casing: This gives the computer a definite shape. It defines a computer telling us more about it, how it responds to the conditions around. Same implies the human skin, it defines the human body.

Differences

1.      Computers can only follow instructions and patterns made by a programmer, while the brain behaves freely using reasoning and common sense.

2.      It is impossible for the brain to function without emotions while computers only act under the logic.

3.      Processing: The human brain adapts to new circumstances and learn new ideas faster than computer.

4.      Repair:  Like all machines, computer is much easier to repair than the human body.

5.      Updates: The computer can be continuously updated and evolve with the development of technology, while the human brain cannot be updated.

6.      Memory: Computers can continue to store memories as they add more RAM. The information is never lost and the computer also stores information in a more orderly way than the human brain.

The operations of human beings with respect to the processing of information

Brains can be compared to computers as information processors, since:

1.      Neurons are on/off devices that can represent digital information.

2.      The neuron threshold effect allows logic gates (McCulloch & Pitts, 1943)

3.      The brain has input/output channels (the senses) as a computer does.

4.      The brain works by electricity as computers do.

5.      As a computer has many transistors so the brain has many neurons (about 10¹⁰, more than there are people in the world)

The brain is the organ where processing of information takes place in human beings. Comparison is made between how computers process data with how the brain processes the senses to combine their strengths, not to decide which is “better”. This has implications for:

·         Computer Design - to improve computer design. While computer systems evolved over about 60 years, the brain has evolved over millions of years, and was rigorously beta tested over many lives. It probably embodies useful design principles.

·         Computer-human interaction (CHI) Design - to improve interface design. Computer success often depends on it human interaction, and knowing how people process information can improve this.

Computer vs. Human Information Processing

A systems theory approach can be used (Bertalanffy, 1968) to contrast computer and human information processing. A processing system, whether computer or brain, is presumed composed of processors, whether computer or cognitive, that receive input from sensors or ports, and send output to effectors or peripherals. The following discussion applies whether the system is physical (hardware) or informational (software).

Von Neumann Computers

While the brain’s design is relatively consistent between people due to genetics, a computer’s design is whatever its designers choose it to be. In the following, “the computer” refers to computers whose design derives directly from Von Neumann’s original architecture, which encompasses the vast majority of computers in use today. In his original design, Von Neumann made certain assumptions to ensure valid processing:

1.      Control: Centralized. Processing is directed from a central processing unit (CPU).

2.      Input: Sequential. Input channels are processed in sequence.

3.      Output: Exclusive. Output resources are locked for single use.

4.      Storage: Location based. Information is accessed by memory address.

5.      Initiation: Input driven. Processing is initiated by input.

6.      Self-processing: Minimal. System does not monitor or change itself.

Each of the above is not a yes/no dichotomy but a proposed continuum, with computer and brain at opposite ends, e.g. a computer’s “parallel port” has more bit lines than its “serial port”, but both are far removed from the massively parallel signals carried by millions of optic nerve fibers in the human brain. While modern computers have dual-core chips and multi-channel processing, this decentralization is relatively little compared to the brain.

1.            Control

Centralized control means all processing ultimately originates from and returns to a central processing unit (CPU), even if that unit delegates work to sub-processors. Computers have a CPU for control reasons, so the computer always knows exactly where, in processing terms, it is up to. However a disadvantage is that if the central unit fails, the whole system fails. On a hardware level, if the CPU stops so does the computer. On a software level, if the operating system enters an infinite processing loop, the whole system “hangs”. Asking a room of people if their computer hung this week usually gives a good show of hands, especially for Windows users, but asking people if their brain permanently “hung” in an infinite neural loop this week is almost a no question.

The repetitive rocking of autism may involve neural loops cycling endlessly in parts of the brain, but such cases are infrequent. While the brain’s “operating system” can work over seventy years, Windows gets “old” after 2-3 years and must be reinstalled.

The brain, unlike the computer, does not have a clear “CPU”. In its neural hierarchy lower sub-systems report to higher ones, but the hierarchy top, the cortex, is divided into two hemispheres. The highest level of brain processing is in two parts that divide up the work between them, e.g. each hemisphere receives only half the visual field, with the left half from both eyes going only to the right hemisphere, which also mainly controls the left body side. Each hemisphere replicates its data to the other using the corpus callosum, a massive 800 million nerve fiber bridge, so both hemispheres see the entire visual field. Studies of split-brain patients, whose corpus callosum was surgically cut, suggest that each hemisphere can independently process input and create output, i.e. each hemisphere acts like an autonomous brain (Sperry & Gazzaniga, 1967). The sub-systems within a hemisphere seem also to have autonomy, as do other systems like the cerebellum (psychomotor control) and mid-brain (emotions). Unlike the computer, the brain has no single central control point, but distributes control among autonomous sub-systems.

A computer design implication is to create systems that share control on demand among autonomous sub-systems. Local area networks illustrate the trend, and CSMA/CD (Ethernet) “ondemand” networks have largely replaced centralized polling networks. Object orientated programming also illustrates shared control, as program sub-units exchange messages and take control as required, so there is no code “mainline”. The World Wide Web is a network without central control, something almost unthinkable twenty years ago.

A computer-human interaction (CHI) implication is to design computer-human interactions to manage the user attention flow. If the brain is a loose collection of autonomous sub-systems, in this “Society of Mind” (Minsky, 1986) attention may operate like a market place, where attention’s focus goes to the sub-system with the strongest neural potentials. In concentration higher sub-systems exert topdown control to direct lower ones to some focus, while in distraction lower sub-systems exert bottom-up control to engage higher ones to attend to some peripheral input. Which is good or bad depends on the situation, e.g. a colorful “New” graphic at the start of a text sentence directs the user to begin reading it, but a flashing graphic at the end of a sentence makes it difficult to read, as one is continuously distracted to the flashing at the end.

2.            Input

Sequential processing carries out many instructions one after another rather than processing them simultaneously (in parallel). While computers use pipelining and hyper-threading, computer processing is mostly sequential due to cable and port bandwidth limits. While supercomputers use some parallel processing, each cell of the human retina has already begun to process boundary information before signals leave the eye.

The serial/parallel difference explains how people can recognize sentences in 1/10th second, faster than most computers, although a neuron event is a million-time slower than computer event. The 1/1,000 second neuron refractory period, a brain hardware property, allows for only 100 sequential steps in this time. No computer code can do human pattern recognition in 100 lines. The brain’s slow components can give a fast response using parallel processing.

While the brain pre-processes visual input in parallel at the retinal level, computers scan screen pixels in sequence, and printers print pixels in sequence. The alternative to sequential processing is parallel processing.

One computer design implication is to increase processing power by operating in parallel.

Parallel super-computer arrays illustrate the power of this approach, as does the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) program where computers from around the world parallel process signals from space. A CHI implication is to design computer-human interactions to engage many input channels at once, i.e. multi-media interfaces. Since people process senses in parallel, computers should provide the same. Multi-media web sites don’t increase information overload, e.g. a web site without depth cues merely leaves human visual depth processors with nothing to do, which reduces the user experience. Adding a parchment background to a screen seems to need more processing, but users have dedicated visual processors for background textons. Adding depth, color, texture, sound or movement to web sites gives interface designers something for nothing, as these are always on human processing channels. Many prefer Netscape’s big icons plus text buttons to Microsoft’s icons only buttons because the brain processes graphics and text in parallel. Here “multi-media” means using both graphics and text, although both are channels within the same visual medium. Likewise color, shape, orientation, movement, texture and depth invoke different brain processes though all are the visual medium. The concept of multi-media can be extended to mean multi-processor, where a multi-media interface engages many neural processes.

3.            Output

Exclusive output processing locks output for sole access, e.g. two documents sent from different computers to a network printer at the same time come out one after the other, not interleaved, as each gets exclusive access. Databases also use exclusive control to avoid the deadly embrace of a double lock. In the computer, one function works at a time, so a software update will overwrite the previous version.

However in the brain new systems overlay rather than replace older ones, e.g. primitive brain stem responses still operate in adults as reflexes. Keeping older but simpler systems has two advantages:

a.       Older systems are more reliable, and can take over if higher systems fail, e.g. brain damage.

b.      Older systems are faster, and a fast simple response can be better than a slow complex one, e.g. touching a hot stove gives a reflex pull back.

The alternative to exclusive output control is overlaid output control, where newer sub-systems inhibit older ones, but older ones can act before the new ones can stop them.

An implication for computer design is to overlay rather than replace when updating. A Windows computer is somewhat layered like this, as a Word failure usually drops the user into Windows, and Windows can revert to DOS if one reboots via the recovery console. However Microsoft has tried to replace DOS, rather than seeing it as a useful fallback. If Word used this principle, a Word crash would drop users into a kernel like WordPad that would still let the user save the current document in rich text form.

4.            Storage

Location based storage stores and recalls information by numbered memory locations, e.g. a disk’s side, track and sector. While such systems can duplicate data by duplicating storage (e.g. RAID 0), this is costly, so one computer “fact” is usually stored in one place, giving the restriction that damaging that location destroys the data held there. Since storage capacity depends linearly on the number of locations, such systems can report “memory full”.

In contrast the brain never seems to report a “memory full” error, even after a lifetime’s experience. If human memory operated like an information data warehouse it should have a clear maximum capacity. Also, if the brain were like a filing cabinet specific brain damage should destroy specific information. Lashley explored this hypothesis in his well known “search for the engram.” (Lashley, 1929). He taught rats to run a maze, then surgically removed different cortical areas in each rat, to find the part holding the maze running memory. He found that removing any 10% of cortex had almost no effect, and after that, maze running degraded gradually, i.e. the amount of brain removed was more important than its location. The conclusion of 33 years of ablation studies was that there are no particular brain cells for particular memories.

While modern studies show memory is not entirely equi-potential, it is clear that one memory is not stored in only one place, i.e. brains don’t store memories as computers do. That electrodes stimulating certain brain cells evoke particular memories does not mean they are stored at that location, only that they can be activated from there. Studies suggest that one memory involves many neurons, with perhaps 1,000 to 1,000,000+ neurons per memory. Equally one neuron is involved many memories rather than just dedicated to one. Somehow memory is stored in the neural interconnections, which increase as the square of neuron number. As each neuron connects to 1,000 - 10,000 others, this gives over 100,000,000,000,000 interconnections, ample capacity to store a lifetime’s data.

Human beings have software

Things like emotions, feelings and reflex actions in humans which cannot be seen or touch can be regarded as the software in human beings. More so, the human spirit is like the operating system without which no man can exist.

References

Adedan Computer Technology: A blog posted on Wednesday November 25, 2015.

Bertalanffy, L. v. (1968). General System Theory. New York: George Braziller Inc.

Chomsky, N. (2006). Language and Mind (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243-1248.

Hogg, M. A. (1990). Social Identity Theory: Springer-Verlag New York.

https://prezi.com/ebsqzqwvrkml/comparison-between-the-human-brain-and-the-computer/ posted by Angie Vanessa Samboni Rojas on 6 April 2014.

Kurzweil, R. (1999). The Age of Spiritual Machines. Toronto: Penguin Books.

Langer, E. J. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 311-328.

Lashley, K. S. (1929). Brain Mechanisms and Intelligence. New York: Chicago University Press.

Lorenz, E. N. (1963). Deterministic nonperiodic flow. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 20, 130-141.

Marr, D. (1982). Vision. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1998). The Tree of Knowledge. Boston: Shambala.

Mayr, O. (1970). The Origins of Feedback Control. Cambridge: MIT Press.

McCulloch, W. S., & Pitts, W. (1943). A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity. Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, 5, 115-133.

Minsky, M. L. (1986). The Society of Mind. New York: Simon and Schuster.

PCMagazine. (2001). 20th Anniversary of the PC Survey Results. Available: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,57454,00.asp [2004].

Penrose, R. (1994). Shadows of the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Skinner, B. F. (1948). 'Superstition' in the pigeon. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 168-172.

Sperry, R. W., & Gazzaniga, M. S. (1967). Language following surgical disconnection of the hemispheres. In C. H. Millikan & F. L. Darley (Eds.), Brain Mechanisms Underlying Speech and Language. USA: Grune & Stratton.

Whitworth, B. (2005). Polite Computing. Behaviour & Information Technology, 5, September, 353 – 363, http://brianwhitworth.com/polite.rtf

Whitworth, B., Gallupe, B., & McQueen, R. (2001). Generating agreement in computer-mediated groups. Small Group Research, 32(5), 621-661.