In our brain, certain impulses are carried via electricity, so they are as fast as possible (inside their structure). Other, much more complex processes, don't involve electricity directly, but they are still fast enough -- but given their complexity, they are still really fast, relatively speaking, and they need quite no space (more important than everything else...).
Time is not a measure for intelligence.
If it were so, humans could be defined as some of the least intelligent beings on our planet (as they need many many years to finally be adults; in fact, we need to learn so many things; most animals are quite ready when they are born -- ask somebody who knows animals).
As for your speculations of human future: are we talking about science or fiction? Although humans are really good in inventing really fantastical future scenes, that has nothing to do with science -- so let's call it fiction for now...
"In our brain, certain impulses are carried via electricity, so they are as fast as possible (inside their structure)"
No, electric impulses in your brain are not carried in the same way as electricity in wires. Please read up on basic neuroscience before you talk about the nervous system. Nerve signals are passed by having one section of a nerve be depolarized (lose polarity, the difference in charge from inside and outside the nerve wall), which causes the next section to depolarize, and so on. Your basic electric wire uses a difference in electric potential, or voltage, between one end and the other, which creates an electromagnetic field that moves electrons.
You completely misunderstood the importance of time. I'm not talking about long-term development (and even then your average human infant of even 6 months is far more intelligent than most animals on Earth). I meant the speed at which the nervous system works as compared to a computer. If you read my previous paragraph, you can see that a computer is still much faster than the human brain. The brain's advantage is the complex networking of all the neurons. Science has already gone a fair way in understanding the brain, we can even decipher signals to let paralyzed people control computers. How much longer until we can start modeling simple brains, and then further?
And as for my speculations, look at what you're doing right now. You, and I, can instantly communicate over a host of different ways even if we are on opposite sides of the Earth. If we wanted to talk face-to-face, we could even see digitized versions of each other in video chat. If we wanted to meet in person, it's only a matter of ours for one of us to go to the other. What do you think people from a hundred years ago would say when you told them such things would be possible?
It may take a while, dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of years, but your speculations of the uniqueness of nature are narrow-minded. You say that modern computers can never match nature because they use 1-dimensional data storage. I've already shown you how such storage can model 3d interactions (it's not about the data, it's about the way it's processed).
Maybe we should call it fiction for now, but remember that the very idea of having a machine calculate an integral, much less solve protein structures, would have been laughable in the past.
Your position: science can imitate (and maybe even surpass) Nature.
My position: science will never ever be able to even come close to Nature (a simple example? Look at the most simple form of live possible: current (so heavily applauded) science has no idea, whatsoever, what even the principle of every live-form is consisting of -- it's called the "soul", BTW).
What counts as a living form? The definition of life is based entirely on scientific observations of what we currently perceive. Does a virus have a soul? Why or why not? (If you say it doesn't because it's not alive, what are your criteria for life? Science's?)
Remember that it is only a belief of yours' that the soul is at the heart of life. What if an entirely inorganic machine was one day created that could:
1. Maintain its internal state (homeostasis).
2. Harvest and utilize energy (metabolism). Very recently robots have been created that can digest organic matter and convert it to usable energy.
3. Manufacture add-ons for itself (growth).
4. Sense its environment and change behavior accordingly (response to stimuli).
5. Manufacture smaller versions of itself by harvesting and creating the needed materials and assembling them (reproduction).
6. Contain a code that can be modified and that governs its behavior, so that imperfect code can be weeded out or changed to improve (adaptation).
And this machine would be completely autonomous. It wouldn't even need much intelligence since all it essentially does is maintain itself, respond in pre-programmed ways to the environment, and create more of itself. How is this different from life other than it doesn't use life's materials? Would it have a soul?
Fiction again?
Are your dreams more real than reality?
You're not doing a real favor to science.
Science always has to be concrete and repeatable (as you well know).
You already make my head ache, really badly...
Please remember: science can reach only that far, it has reallimits, which nobody is able to extend, and which we all need to respect.
P.S: The principle of any life in Nature is called it's soul, which is invisible, and which only lasts as long as the life persists. So, every plant has its (simple) soul, and science until now has no clue whatsoever what even the simplest form of these souls are consisting of -- as they are, in fact, outside of our physical universe...
How do any of those break any limits of science? Please, I'd love to know. Maybe you think I'm talking about Matrix-style robots and have decided that I'm just being silly. I'm not. A simple bot that has the capability of manufacturing more of itself won't be that hard, consider that most modern factories are highly automated.
Oh, as for your soul principle, do you have any concrete evidence, any proof?
Are you actually saying that science has limits because it doesn't conform to your belief system?
So, you say that it would (in theory) be possible, that the human brain could create something more intelligent than itself?
Come on, that's ridiculous.
(Like the evolution theory, which is completely ridiculous, as it says that a less intelligent being can "auto-evovle" into something more intelligent...)
At this point, any discussion is pointless, as we already completely substitute reality with fiction.
Time is not a measure for intelligence. If it were so, humans could be defined as some of the least intelligent beings on our planet (as they need many many years to finally be adults; in fact, we need to learn so many things; most animals are quite ready when they are born -- ask somebody who knows animals).
As for your speculations of human future: are we talking about science or fiction? Although humans are really good in inventing really fantastical future scenes, that has nothing to do with science -- so let's call it fiction for now...