Thread: How are we not a computer?

Originally Posted by Xei

Firstly, could you please give a source for this? It's my understanding that the overall magnetic field doesn't have an effect.

http://www.surrey.ac.uk/qe/pdfs/cemi_theory_paper.pdf

It gets to the effect of the magnetic field on neuron firing on page 5.

Originally Posted by Xei

Secondly, in either case, magnetic fields are deterministic and hence can be emulated by a computer.

All I said was that this is not how computers work. Sure, it is possible to build a computer that utilizes magnetic fields in its processing. In fact, it has already been done to a degree. You can read about it here.

Spoiler for the important bit:

Dr. Thompson peered inside his perfect offspring to gain insight into its methods, but what he found inside was baffling. The plucky chip was utilizing only thirty-seven of its one hundred logic gates, and most of them were arranged in a curious collection of feedback loops. Five individual logic cells were functionally disconnected from the rest– with no pathways that would allow them to influence the output– yet when the researcher disabled any one of them the chip lost its ability to discriminate the tones. Furthermore, the final program did not work reliably when it was loaded onto other FPGAs of the same type.
It seems that evolution had not merely selected the best code for the task, it had also advocated those programs which took advantage of the electromagnetic quirks of that specific microchip environment. The five separate logic cells were clearly crucial to the chip's operation, but they were interacting with the main circuitry through some unorthodox method– most likely via the subtle magnetic fields that are created when electrons flow through circuitry, an effect known as magnetic flux. There was also evidence that the circuit was not relying solely on the transistors' absolute ON and OFF positions like a typical chip; it was capitalizing upon analogue shades of gray along with the digital black and white.

My argument was that reducing the question to the very basics of what a person does and what a computer does and calling them the same was absurd. They don't work the same way, unless you want to say that a person is basically just a sophisticated abacus. The most pertinent part of that article for me was that they were unable to recreate the program willfully, that is; without utilizing the evolutionary process. Without actually knowing what a conscious mind is, how can you expect to reduce it to its basic functions and 'emulate' it?

I think Taosaur's conclusion was the only correct one that can be drawn from this conversation. There may come a day when human consciousness is indeed emulated by a machine, but that machine will be so far removed from what we today call a computer that it can hardly even be looked at in the same context.

It gets to the effect of the magnetic field on neuron firing on page 5.

Your claims, which I believe I've stumbled upon before, inspired me to do some research. Turns out there is only one paper about this 'field theory' by this McFadden guy, who is not a neuroscientist but a molecular biologist who writes books which seem to be mainly about philosophy (the terms quantum evolution and quantum consciousness also popped up somewhere in his literature, the latter of which I know has no empirical basis). The paper itself is in fact mostly philosophy, and as far as I'm concerned, bunk philosophy. The claim that the electromagnetic field is the 'carrier' of consciousness is really completely meaningless and untestable. Consciousness isn't made out of anything and deciding on some random physical trait and labelling it 'consciousness' (and bizarrely disregarding other hugely important components such as the material ions which are the very basis of neural function) does nothing to solve the hard problem as the paper claims. With regards to the science, from Wired,

"No serious researcher I know believes in an electromagnetic theory of consciousness," Bernard Baars wrote in an e-mail. Baars is a neurobiologist and co-editor of Consciousness & Cognition, another scientific journal in the field. "It's not really worth talking about scientifically."

It's fairly easy to test these theories actually, by placing a subject in an electromagnetic field which overwhelms any effect that could be caused by intrabrain fields; nothing happens to these subjects.

All I said was that this is not how computers work. Sure, it is possible to build a computer that utilizes magnetic fields in its processing. In fact, it has already been done to a degree. You can read about it here.

No that's not what I was talking about, I was saying that with a standard digital computer you can create programs which emulate physics, including magnetic fields.

I saw on the very dodgy Wikipedia article that McFadden was claiming that a computer could never emulate a brain because transistors don't use spread out electromagnetic fields; it's this mistake I was adressing.

My argument was that reducing the question to the very basics of what a person does and what a computer does and calling them the same was absurd. They don't work the same way, unless you want to say that a person is basically just a sophisticated abacus. The most pertinent part of that article for me was that they were unable to recreate the program willfully, that is; without utilizing the evolutionary process. Without actually knowing what a conscious mind is, how can you expect to reduce it to its basic functions and 'emulate' it?

I think Taosaur's conclusion was the only correct one that can be drawn from this conversation. There may come a day when human consciousness is indeed emulated by a machine, but that machine will be so far removed from what we today call a computer that it can hardly even be looked at in the same context.

The current understanding is that neural nets and their impulses are what cause consciousness. There's plenty of evidence for this.

The computer need not be any different whatsoever. It's a turing machine. That's enough.

Originally Posted by Xei

Your claims, which I believe I've stumbled upon before, inspired me to do some research. Turns out there is only one paper about this 'field theory' by this McFadden guy, who is not a neuroscientist but a molecular biologist who writes books which seem to be mainly about philosophy (the terms quantum evolution and quantum consciousness also popped up somewhere in his literature, the latter of which I know has no empirical basis). The paper itself is in fact mostly philosophy, and as far as I'm concerned, bunk philosophy. The claim that the electromagnetic field is the 'carrier' of consciousness is really completely meaningless and untestable. Consciousness isn't made out of anything and deciding on some random physical trait and labelling it 'consciousness' (and bizarrely disregarding other hugely important components such as the material ions which are the very basis of neural function) does nothing to solve the hard problem as the paper claims. With regards to the science, from Wired,

"No serious researcher I know believes in an electromagnetic theory of consciousness," Bernard Baars wrote in an e-mail. Baars is a neurobiologist and co-editor of Consciousness & Cognition, another scientific journal in the field. "It's not really worth talking about scientifically."

It's fairly easy to test these theories actually, by placing a subject in an electromagnetic field which overwhelms any effect that could be caused by intrabrain fields; nothing happens to these subjects.

No that's not what I was talking about, I was saying that with a standard digital computer you can create programs which emulate physics, including magnetic fields.

I saw on the very dodgy Wikipedia article that McFadden was claiming that a computer could never emulate a brain because transistors don't use spread out electromagnetic fields; it's this mistake I was adressing.

The current understanding is that neural nets and their impulses are what cause consciousness. There's plenty of evidence for this.

The computer need not be any different whatsoever. It's a turing machine. That's enough.

You missed the entire point of my post.

I didn't say anything about McFadden's interpretation of consciousness. I believe that phenomenon is much more complex and holistic than anyone seems to be willing to admit. The entire reason why I cited that article was to show his experimental evidence that shows a correlation between the electromagnetic field and the firing of neurons. If you'd like, I can link you to several other articles that describe experiments using electromagnetic fields to stimulate mice brains, which even show an increase in growth.

You seem to think that simulating the essential functions of the brain is the same as emulating them. You have no evidence for that and yet you make it sound like it is common sense. Serial processors can simulate parallel processing but it doesn't accomplish the same thing. The brain does not operate with logic gates, it operates with system wide patterns of activity. The processes in which computers and neural nets work are completely different. Breaking the systems down into some subjective view of their functions does not make them the same.

If you go from the assumption of science, that the universe is ordened, governed by a fixed set of laws, then this assumption also counts for the brains (duh). Therefore, it is only logical, that one day, we will be able to simulate the brains... unless science is incorrect and the laws of the universe change all the time, but last time I checked, gravity still works.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

If you go from the assumption of science, that the universe is ordened, governed by a fixed set of laws, then this assumption also counts for the brains (duh). Therefore, it is only logical, that one day, we will be able to simulate the brains... unless science is incorrect and the laws of the universe change all the time, but last time I checked, gravity still works.

Somehow this thread turned into a discussion on whether it is possible for technology to create a facsimile of the human brain, but that was not the original topic. The topic is whether or not humans are computers. The things that we call computers are really nothing like human beings and the fact that we have created them to perform tasks that we also perform does not change that. Just as Taosaur has already pointed out, a human is not a forklift just because we've designed it to lift things as we do, and a human is not a blender just because we've designed it to break down food as we do.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The brain does not operate with logic gates, it operates with system wide patterns of activity. The processes in which computers and neural nets work are completely different. Breaking the systems down into some subjective view of their functions does not make them the same.

It doesn't really matter if computers and neural nets work in a different way. They still perform essentially the same function: computation.

Cells, including neurons, are in no way similar to a computer, yet they can be used to compute things. This is also what they do naturally and that is how they survive.
They take inputs (e.g. chemical signals), perform some kind of algorithm (this is implemented by physical interactions between various biomolecules, DNA, RNA, proteins, small molecules...) and give out some kind of output.

Individual neurons (and their molecular subparts) operate very much like logic gates. The behavior of the system cannot be reduced to logic gates, but it's still the product of those logic gates working in a coordinated fashion.

Originally Posted by ClouD

Ghost in the shell idea possibly related.

Electrical signals to and fro, bodily processes, but where do WE come into it? Do we actually come into it?
Probably something we've all considered or maybe some of us even dtd, but what do you think, and what is known about ourselves?

Furthermore, what about at an atomic level? I'm wondering what thoughts really are, where the associations are made from WHO and to WHAT.

I'll back up and take a different approach, addressing the questions I've bolded above. The basis for ClouD's comparison seems to be that if we cannot circle a part of the brain or draw a diagram of reactions that constitute 'I' at any given time, then self must be either independent of our electrochemical systems (ghost in the shell) or completely false and nonexistent. Placing this discussion in Science and Mathematics and asking about thought at the atomic level somewhat nullifies the inquiry, as the material sciences lack the evidence to come to either of these two conclusions, or any other.

I'll approach the question, therefor, from the standpoint of a discipline that has addressed it directly and in depth in a scholarly, if not scientific, fashion: Buddhist teachings. What you're expressing is an incomplete understanding of no-self. In short, the teaching of no-self asserts that the self as we ordinarily conceive it does not exist. If you look for 'the real you,' you will not find it. This teaching derives from the Noble Truth of thrishna: human suffering arises from thirsting after forms which have no fixed existence. The car you want does not exist. The mate you want does not exist. The identity you strive to feed and protect does not exist.

This teaching does not assert, however, that there is no car, no mate, no person present; only that those forms and concepts are empty, provisional, and passing away, far removed from the idealized forms that occupy the mind. Stop thirsting after self, and it's no longer something that can be lost, or found. We and all that exists are empty, partaking equally of eternity and decay.

I didn't mind reading the whole thread.

Originally Posted by Invader

We are conscious, self aware, possess the ability to experience. We also
undergo the phenomenon of inspiration. I'm not sure that a computer will ever
be able to do this in the future, I'd like to live long enough to find out.

The Blue Brain project posted earlier by Xei looks promising.

Consciousness, self-awareness, experience are all specific brain functions done by specific parts of the brain. A computer could be programmed to do the same.

Originally Posted by Jeff777

We aren't computers because we were here first. If anything, computers are human.

Weak argument. A computer is a mechanism that performs tasks according to its algorithm. The human brain fits in that category.


----------

The only thing that currently sets us apart is the development of the brain - as in, our intelligence goes up with age, contrary to a computer's capacity, which stays the same. On all other matters, we're machines - biological ones.

----------

@ Cloud:

We don't come into it. There is not a spirit or immaterial mind controlling the brain. We are the whole - more than the sum of the parts. Our brain is programmed to give us the illusion of identity, a characteristic that underwent natural selection, like any other.

----------


If we one day had the most powerful computer in the universe, and programmed a whole new universe, similar to ours. Would the people in it exist? Would they be conscious? Would it be ethical to turn off the supercomputer?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

The only thing that currently sets us apart is the development of the brain - as in, our intelligence goes up with age, contrary to a computer's capacity, which stays the same. On all other matters, we're machines - biological ones.

Our intelligence goes up because the brain makes new connections between neurons.
Don't you think a computer can/could do this just as well?

What is the difference between a computer and us?
What is consciousness, but the illusion of choice? Is consciousness not real? Are our actions simply reactions, are they just part of the process? Can we be aware of anything that is not from the processes of our programming?
Can a computer be?

Can anyone answer further with a biological answer?

You missed the entire point of my post.

I didn't say anything about McFadden's interpretation of consciousness. I believe that phenomenon is much more complex and holistic than anyone seems to be willing to admit. The entire reason why I cited that article was to show his experimental evidence that shows a correlation between the electromagnetic field and the firing of neurons. If you'd like, I can link you to several other articles that describe experiments using electromagnetic fields to stimulate mice brains, which even show an increase in growth.

Um, I did address that specifically, alongside the philosophy..?

No neuroscientist takes this field theory seriously. There is clear experimental evidence against, which I provided (external electromagnetic fields don't impair cognitive function).

You're conflating the issue of the basis of neural function with physiology.

You seem to think that simulating the essential functions of the brain is the same as emulating them. You have no evidence for that and yet you make it sound like it is common sense. Serial processors can simulate parallel processing but it doesn't accomplish the same thing. The brain does not operate with logic gates, it operates with system wide patterns of activity. The processes in which computers and neural nets work are completely different. Breaking the systems down into some subjective view of their functions does not make them the same.

As far as I see it the onus is on you to show why a collection of water, fat, proteins, ions etcetera can perform cognitive functions whilst silicon atoms and electrons cannot. You've once again started telling me how transistors aren't like neurons so once again I'm going to have to tell you that I've never claimed that, and refer you to SnakeCharmer.

Originally Posted by ClouD

What is the difference between a computer and us?
What is consciousness, but the illusion of choice? Is consciousness not real? Are our actions simply reactions, are they just part of the process? Can we be aware of anything that is not from the processes of our programming?
Can a computer be?

Can anyone answer further with a biological answer?

Originally Posted by Mario92

If you want to get really technical, humans have no free will at all. We like to think we do, and for now, we are superior to computers in that our thought processes mimic free will much better, but ultimately, the ions jumping the synapses between neurons in the brain were placed there through billions of years of chain reactions. The big bang ultimately set everything in motion. Why do you think? Because a certain set of neurons connected in the right way. Why does life exist? Because a set of atoms and molecules arranged themselves into an organized mass of compounds. (Crudely put, but you get my point.) So, we are similar to computers, but our range of thoughts and emotions are far deeper and more advanced than those of modern computers. Give scientists, programmers, and mathematicians a few decades to catch up, and this will change.

Pretty much this. Matter, at the atomic level, tends to behave very predictably. There are some exceptions and odd little ghost particles out there, and once in a great while a rare exception to the rule will occur, but again, nothing within our control. So, yes, as humans, we have no free will. We are under the impression that we are, but we cannot spontaneously make our own decisions to re-arrange the firing of neurons within the brain, and even if we did, it would only be because a long line of predictable interactions between particles occurred and made it so. So, basically, we are computers, albeit computers with a deeper and more meaningful existence. While computers are not yet self-aware or capable of feeling emotion, it will only be a matter of time before true AI is developed. Let us not forget the brain works on chemo-electrical impulses. How is a circuit board or microchip that different?

Originally Posted by ClouD

Isn't it a given? Eternity is, what else?
Nothing is everything, both terms encompass the infinite/all-that-is in totality, so dividing/comparing the two seems pointless. Though that's probably not how you intend to come across.
The teaching is for our minds, to what? Teach us what we are[n't]? Seems to be redundant if we are already. It doesn't seem to answer the question that this thread poses, though.

What is the difference between a computer and us?
What is consciousness, but the illusion of choice? Is consciousness not real? Are our actions simply reactions, are they just part of the process? Can we be aware of anything that is not from the processes of our programming?

Can a computer be?

You're deflecting what I'm saying, not grasping it. The relevance of no-self is that consciousness is real, but not what we suppose it to be. We are carried by the flow of events, and also guide that flow, not either/or. To the extent that our electrochemical processes resemble programming at all, we have collaborated in that programming and, more than any other part of the universe, are responsible for it. As a species, and to some extent as individuals, we choose our own programming and each other's.

But again, referring to human "programming" is only metaphor. To ask, "Can we be aware of anything that is not from the processes of our programming?" exceeds the reach of that metaphor, so that either answer, yes or no, is nonsense. A computer is literally programmed; its intelligence is only the intelligence of its creators, based on their understanding of its operation and their skill at using it. It's a tool derived, I'll say again, from only a sliver of the activity of human intelligence.

"Are our actions...reactions?"

Yes.

"Are our actions simply reactions?"

No.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

"Are our actions...reactions?"

Yes.

"Are our actions simply reactions?"

No.

See above post. In short, while it may appear that our actions transcend reactions, the processes that lead up to them are, in fact, merely reactions.

Originally Posted by Xei

You're conflating the issue of the basis of neural function with physiology.
As far as I see it the onus is on you to show why a collection of water, fat, proteins, ions etcetera can perform cognitive functions whilst silicon atoms and electrons cannot. You've once again started telling me how transistors aren't like neurons so once again I'm going to have to tell you that I've never claimed that, and refer you to SnakeCharmer.

Are you equating a human being with cognitive functions? Are you merely your thoughts?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Are you equating a human being with cognitive functions? Are you merely your thoughts?

Yeah, basically. Without your thoughts, you are meat with eyes. So, we are pretty much only our thoughts and this slab of meat they are attached to.

Originally Posted by Xei

You're conflating the issue of the basis of neural function with physiology.
As far as I see it the onus is on you to show why a collection of water, fat, proteins, ions etcetera can perform cognitive functions whilst silicon atoms and electrons cannot. You've once again started telling me how transistors aren't like neurons so once again I'm going to have to tell you that I've never claimed that, and refer you to SnakeCharmer.

...the onus of proof generally falls on those making extraordinary claims. You claim that systems bearing little or no resemblance to the only system known to exhibit consciousness (a human being), nevertheless must be able to exhibit consciousness despite their never having done so over a couple generations of humans trying to make it happen. You can proclaim they just aren't big enough or haven't been programmed right, but that's an unfalsifiable claim unless you can provide a rational model for what scale of resources would produce consciousness in a binary math machine. Xaq and I are merely pointing out that computers don't replicate the full spectrum of activity in the human brain, much less in a human being.

Originally Posted by Mario92
If you want to get really technical, humans have no free will at all. We like to think we do, and for now, we are superior to computers in that our thought processes mimic free will much better, but ultimately, the ions jumping the synapses between neurons in the brain were placed there through billions of years of chain reactions. The big bang ultimately set everything in motion. Why do you think? Because a certain set of neurons connected in the right way. Why does life exist? Because a set of atoms and molecules arranged themselves into an organized mass of compounds. (Crudely put, but you get my point.) So, we are similar to computers, but our range of thoughts and emotions are far deeper and more advanced than those of modern computers. Give scientists, programmers, and mathematicians a few decades to catch up, and this will change.

This kind of hard-line determinism is absurd. It's Creationism minus the Creator. The only events that are absolutely determined are those that have already happened. Beyond that, the physicists are still (or we might say, once again) arguing among themselves.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

This kind of hard-line determinism is absurd. It's Creationism minus the Creator. The only events that are absolutely determined are those that have already happened. Beyond that, the physicists are still (or we might say, once again) arguing among themselves.

How do you figure that this is "absurd?" Your thoughts and impulses are derived from the brain. More specifically, they are caused by ions jumping the synapse between two neurons. These ions get the "message" to jump the gap through a process of cell interactions and processes. Cell processes can be broken down smaller and smaller, until you are essentially left with simple organic compounds moving about. What causes these compounds to move about? Whatever they interacted with last set them on their present course. Well, what did they interact with, and how did that get there in the first place? It interacted with something else...and so on and so forth. You cannot "control" what neurons fire and when. When you make a decision, it is because of a chain reaction between atoms, molecules, and particles. You do not spontaneously lend energy to the ions, or create messages. It is beyond your control.

Originally Posted by Mario92

How do you figure that this is "absurd?" Your thoughts and impulses are derived from the brain. More specifically, they are caused by ions jumping the synapse between two neurons. These ions get the "message" to jump the gap through a process of cell interactions and processes. Cell processes can be broken down smaller and smaller, until you are essentially left with simple organic compounds moving about. What causes these compounds to move about? Whatever they interacted with last set them on their present course. Well, what did they interact with, and how did that get there in the first place? It interacted with something else...and so on and so forth. You cannot "control" what neurons fire and when. When you make a decision, it is because of a chain reaction between atoms, molecules, and particles. You do not spontaneously lend energy to the ions, or create messages. It is beyond your control.

And when the chain reactions occur among particles, it is because you made a decision. The two are simultaneous and synonymous, the system influencing the state of the particles and the particles influencing the state of the system. The outcome is not determined until it is past. The present is by definition the unfixed event horizon of our causal continuum, in which all that exists operates interdependently, including us and all our constituent parts.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

And when the chain reactions occur among particles, it is because you made a decision. The two are simultaneous and synonymous, the system influencing the state of the particles and the particles influencing the state of the system. The outcome is not determined until it is past. The present is by definition the unfixed event horizon of our causal continuum, in which all that exists operates interdependently, including us and all our constituent parts.

Ah, but also take note, that particles will take the most likely path at an incredible percentage, and the likeliness of the unlikely happening is slim at best.

Also, how do you make a decision? You think. You use your brain, which operates on chemo-electric impulses...nothing more than matter and energy. The matter is on a fixed course, set there by reactions with other bits of matter and transference of energy, which likewise reacted with other matter and other energy in the past. When we "make a decision" or "reach a conclusion," it is because a specific set of neurons reacted in such a way as to "decide" or create the illusion of "decision." Without the brain, there would be no deciding, no conclusion-reaching. Your brain is matter and energy; nothing more. It follows the same principles as the rest of the universe. Being that it is matter and energy, it is extremely unlikely to alter its present state or simultaneously veer from its present course unless acted upon by an outside force. "Decision making" is no such outside force.

Originally Posted by ClouD

What is the difference between a computer and us?
What is consciousness, but the illusion of choice? Is consciousness not real? Are our actions simply reactions, are they just part of the process? Can we be aware of anything that is not from the processes of our programming?
Can a computer be?

Can anyone answer further with a biological answer?

I can give it a try...

I've thought about this before when I first started learning about brain chemistry. The brain is very basically billions of neurons, that are either at action potential or resting potential. Sounds VERY similar to the transistors of a computer, all of which are either at 0 or 1. The difference is how they interact with each other. The human brain's interactions are much more dynamic than that of a computer, because its capable of being conditioned biologically. The system of electric impulses and neurotransmitter binding is far more advanced than how transistors interact.

If a human brain has a person walk into an electric fence, they feel pain. The brain responds at a molecular level and changes its original chemistry that would originally have the person walk there. Now they know better, and walk around it. A computer (as we know them now), say a robotic human programmed the same way would feel the pain but would repeatedly walk into the fence because that conditioning does not take place. Everything we do seems to happen reactively like this. The electric fence is just a simple example. If we could build a computer to network dynamically like the brain, it would be capable of everything we are (though whether or not it would be conscious I believe is up for debate).

So yeah, I think everything is reactive. The illusion of free will is just part of the human experience. However I don't think that's all there is to consciousness. If one stops empowering these illusions of choice and self there's still awareness that shines through the individual, which gets directed towards the body and the environment instead of the mind.

Consciousness never ceases to amaze me. I'm starting to believe its greater than matter. I read in the DSM-IV once about a form of schizophrenia that's actually shared between people. Like, they actually share delusions and hallucinations when they live in close quarters. I'm also hearing different accounts of shared dreaming which seems like that same mingling of consciousness in the dream world. I firmly believe now that consciousness isn't limited to our individual bodies or our brain chemistry.

What determines my choice of heads or tails. That's totally random.

Originally Posted by Praise

What determines my choice of heads or tails. That's totally random.

Is it?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0414145705.htm

Contrary to what most of us would like to believe, decision-making may be a process handled to a large extent by unconscious mental activity. A team of scientists has unraveled how the brain actually unconsciously prepares our decisions. Even several seconds before we consciously make a decision its outcome can be predicted from unconscious activity in the brain.

Again, connecting neurons make the decision, and all that goes right back to all my other previous posts on determinism and chain reactions, etc.

Mario92 knowing a decision earlier doesn't mean that it is determined.