Table of ContentsIntroductionConclusionReferencesIntroductionPeople have compared the brain to different inventions. The most common invention the brain is compared to is a computer. More than 30 years ago, television shows ranging from The Jetsons to Star Trek suggested that by the end of the millennium, computers would be able to read, speak, recognize, walk, converse, think, and perhaps even feel. However, in general, we still don't talk to our computers, our cars, or our homes, and they don't talk to us either. The idea that computers are incredibly intelligent is changing, because when computers enter human specialties like conversation, many people find them stupid rather than intelligent, as any "conversation" with can illustrate. using a computer. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essayHumans and computers inhibit a single world in which they seem to exist symbiotically. Computers need humans to be created, while humans need computers to evolve. The process of media, banking, electricity as well as other means of transportation depends on technology. The more advanced he is, the more they are in return. Just think about modern cars that are essentially computers on wheels. Without innovative software projects and dozens of sensitive electronic components functioning like a brain, the automotive sector 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 task includes mathematical calculations, but also repetitive tasks that quickly bore humans. However, people quickly recognize familiar faces, but computers still cannot recognize known terrorist faces during airport check-in. Advanced computers are struggling to master skills that most 5-year-olds have already mastered, like speaking, reading, conversing, and running: so far, no computer-controlled robot could begin to compete with even a young child, in carrying out some of the simplest daily activities: such as recognizing that a colored pencil on the floor across the room is what is needed to complete a drawing, crossing to retrieve that pencil, then give it to us. Moreover, the capabilities of even an ant, in carrying out its daily activities, would far exceed what can be activated by today's most sophisticated computer control system. That computers can't even compete with an ant, with its tiny silver brain. , is surprising. I suggest this comes from treatment design and not treatment inability. If computers are still struggling to master skills at age 5, what about what children learn after age five, as they “grow up”? The Robot World Cup aims to transform today's clunky robot mixes into brilliant football by 2050. The computer as we know it today got its start with a 19th century English maths teacher, Charles Babbage. He designed the analytical engine and it is on this design that the basic framework 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 the Atanasoff-Berry computer. Atanasoff and his graduate, Clifford Berry, designed a computer capable of solving 29 equations simultaneously. Computers of this generation could only perform a single task and had no operating system. In 1951, the first computer for commercial use was introduced to the public; the universal automatic computer (UNIVAC 1). At that time, computers had memory and an operating system. In 1980, the Microsoft Disk Operating System (MS-Dos) was born, and in 1981, IBM introduced the personal computer (PC) for home and business use. Thanks to the various improvements in the development of the computer, we have seen the computer being used in every area of ​​our lives. This is a very useful tool that will continue to see new developments over time. Most believe that PCs, machines and robots will reach or even surpass human knowledge in the long term. This thinking is reinforced by numerous advances in the field of the human brain (artificial intelligence). Will the PCs really defeat human knowledge? What does human knowledge mean? PCs now outperform human algorithmic estimates, among other things. In reality, an opportunity to conquer human capabilities could be a psychological framework entirely different from the realm of human-centered science fiction. As we will show later, this type of PC can defeat some, but not all, human abilities. This is the reason; a position could guarantee that it is not important to accept PCs as brains to conquer human abilities. It’s an admirable feeling; But with this type of PC, beating the human brain just in a normal algorithmic way or in a more enthusiastic way? With this type of PC, do you have the possibility to become superior to us, to make us superior, to feel much improved and to love us? Otherwise, it will never succeed in overcoming human capabilities. One explanation is based on the fact that part of being human is having passionate behavior, having the opportunity to move, create, etc., as well as our obviously judicious behavior. Indeed, passionate conduct may be more and more important to the definition of the person than objective conduct. As we have referred to it, the main question develops: what does individual mean? It is beyond the realm of imagination to think about beating human capabilities if one does not understand what it means to be a human being and what capabilities need to be preserved. In fact, current executions of feelings in machines depend on an intelligent, calculable, and deterministic way, forgetting the fundamental attributes of feelings, for example, the fact that feelings interfere with discernment procedures and ideal choices. Truth be told, these executions depend on the possibility that feelings play an important role in becoming progressively productive, objectively speaking people, while false psychological notions arise in opposition and probe the neuroscience of the default neuronal system called, which is linked to self-located data, propose corresponding hostile data processing subsystems which intermingle with each other. The non-mind-like PC perspective doesn't care and accepts knowledge as an objective, rational, and calculable capacity; or even more terrible, the problem with non-cerebral PC protections is to think that some properties of life could be imitated without the unmistakable properties of being alive. For the final purpose of this work, we./