Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your statement.
If sensor data were the problem, computers could easily outperform humans since we have sensors that generate much more detailed data than the human senses: High-resolution cameras, multi-spectral and thermal imaging, x-rays, radar, etc.
The actual difference is that when shown a picture and told "this is a cat", humans already know what to look for. Even if a human has never seen a cat before, they will not, for example, examine the background of the photo, or the floor the cat is lying on. They will also instinctively derive analogies from similar animals they already know, and deduce lots of correct information about that "cat" without needing to be told explicitly.
Yes exactly. You’ll look for 4 legs, a tail, pointy ears and graceful movement. All of that is data you’ve registered by your (primarily one) senses (sensors). You’re receiving more data, and processing it faster, than a program.
Humans are fundamentally pattern matchers, and we’re great at it. What you call concept I call pattern.
I believe you vastly underestimate the amount of information the human brain processes continuously. Computers outperform humans by performing extremely narrow, focused computations at a high rate of speed. Despite years and years of research, I don't believe humans have even scratched the surface of understanding the human brain. In fact, I don't believe humans are capable of fully understanding it, since it was created by Someone so much greater than them.
