IndexIntroductionConclusionReferencesIntroductionPeople have compared the brain to different inventions. The most common invention to which the brain is compared is a computer. Over 30 years ago, television shows from The Jetsons to Star Trek suggested that by the end of the millennium, computers would read, talk, recognize, walk, converse, think and perhaps even hear. However, in general, we still don't talk to our computers, our cars or our homes, and they don't talk to us. The idea that computers are incredibly intelligent is changing, as when computers enter human specialties such as conversation, many people find them stupid rather than intelligent, as any “conversation” with the help of a computer can illustrate. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayHumans and computers inhibit the same world in which they appear to exist in symbiosis. Computers need people to be created, while people need computers to evolve. The process of media, banking, electricity and other means of transportation depends on technology. The more advanced he is, the more advanced they are in return. Just think of modern cars which are basically computers on wheels. Without innovative software designs and dozens of sensitive, brain-like electronic components, the automotive industry would not have been as successful as it is today. But computers are not only integrated into the structure of vehicles. Computers are extremely fast, so when a task can be translated into an algorithm, a computer will typically complete it much more quickly and accurately than the average human. This type of activity includes mathematical calculations and also repetitive tasks that humans quickly become bored with. However, people quickly recognize familiar faces, but computers are still unable to recognize the familiar faces of terrorists when checking in at the airport. Advanced computers have difficulty with skills that most 5-year-olds have already mastered, such as speaking, reading, conversing, and running: until now, no computer-controlled robot could begin to compete with even a toddler in perform some of the simplest everyday tasks: such as recognizing that a colored crayon lying on the floor at the other end of the room is what is needed to complete a drawing, going to pick up that crayon and then handing it to us. Moreover, even the capabilities of an ant, in carrying out its daily activities, would far exceed those that can be activated by today's most sophisticated computerized control systems. That computers can't even compete with an ant, with its tiny silver brain. , it's amazing. I suggest that this arises from the design of processing, not the inability to process. If computers still struggle with 5-year-old skills, what about what children learn after age five, as they “grow up?” The Robot World Cup aims to transform current clunky robot games into ingenious soccer skills by 2050. The computer as we know it today began in the 19th century with an English mathematics professor named Charles Babbage. He designed the analytical engine and it is on this design that the basic structure of today's computers is based. In 1937 the first electronic digital computer was built by Dr. John V. Atanasoff and Clifford Berry. It was called Atanasoff-Berry Computer. Atanasoff and his graduate student, Clifford Berry, design a computer capable of solving 29 equations simultaneously. THEcomputers of this generation could only perform a single task and had no operating system. In 1951 the first computer for commercial use was presented to the public; the Universal Automatic Computer (UNIVAC 1). During this period computers had memory and operating system. In 1980, Microsoft Disk Operating System (MS-Dos) was born, and in 1981 IBM introduced the personal computer (PC) for home and office use. As a result of various improvements in computer development we have seen the computer used in all areas of our lives. It is a very useful tool that will continue to experience new developments as time goes by. For the most part, it is believed that PCs, machines and robots will eventually catch up to or even surpass human knowledge. This thinking is reinforced by numerous advances in human intellectual capabilities (artificial intelligence). Will PCs really defeat human knowledge? What does human knowledge mean? PCs now outperform human algorithmic estimates, among many others. In fact, an alternative to conquering human capabilities could be a psychological framework that is completely unusual for the human-centered vision of science fiction. As will be illustrated later, this type of PC can defeat some, but not all, human capabilities. This is why; one position could guarantee that it is not important to accept PCs as brains to conquer human capabilities. It's an admirable sentiment; in any case, with this type of PC to beat the human brain only in a normal algorithmic way or also in an enthusiastic way? With this type of PC do you have the possibility to surpass us, to make us superior, to feel much improved and to please us? Otherwise he will never conquer human capabilities. One explanation is that part of being human is having passionate behavior, having the ability to move, do, and so on, in addition to our obviously judicious conduct. To tell the truth, passionate conduct can always be more significant for the definition of a person than objective conduct. As mentioned above, the main question arises: what does individual mean? It is beyond the realm of imagination to think of surpassing human capabilities in case one does not understand what it means to be a human being and what capabilities should be survivable. As a matter of fact, the current execution of feelings in machines depends on an intelligent, computable and deterministic way, forgetting the fundamental attributes of feelings, for example the fact that feelings interfere with discernment procedures and ideal choices. To be sure, these executions depend on the possibility that feelings play a significant role in becoming progressively productive, objectively speaking people, when false psychological notions appear the opposite and probe neuroscience from the so-called default neural system, which is connected with data self-located, they propose hostile data management subsystems that interfere with each other. The perspective of a PC with a non-similar mind could not care less and accept knowledge as if it were an objective, rational, calculable ability; or even more terrible, the problem of non-brain-like PC protections is the sense that some properties of life can be imitated without the unmistakable properties of being alive. With the final aim of this work, we should expect that there is a certain arrangement of 'individual' properties and it is conceivable to choose when a creature or machine reaches or does not reach the condition of being part of this whole, in any case, when it becomes I realize that the meaning of this set is one of the most dubious and discussed issues. One way or another, human memory and PC memory are./