Thread: How are we not a computer?

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 Xei

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.

I'm not trying to say that transistors are like neurons. I'm trying to say that you don't need transistors to compute. The point is that the idea of computers has nothing to do with those plastic and metal boxes sitting on our desks.

A biological system is a computer. Our behavior on every level (molecular, cellular, macroscopic) is the result of computations being performed inside our cells and brain.
I hope this post cleared up my position on this topic.

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 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.

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.

arisen sum of motion and parts

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 love that anime.
Ontopic: Most people would say because we have a soul. Thats a very very vague answer, but thats an answer your going to get regardless.

Can computers do abstract art? Or write a song about what Christmas feels like? Or make up a game?

This is what defines us from computers, as well as Consicoussness. It is Creativity, the ability to make up stuff, like songs, games, art…

Of course, at the moment a computer could possibly recreate Picasso or Motzart, but that is Copying, not Creativity. Creativity is about Creating.

And does a computer have emphathy, the ability to understand how other people are feeling? Can they communicate, and understand what they are saying?

Biologically, our neurons do not function like computer transistors. Yes, they fire signals, but they make new connections, and they can fire in an infinate number of ways. A computer will pass signals as 1 or 0, but we can have partial signals, like ‘nearly halfway open’ or ‘partway closed’.

Originally Posted by hgld1234

Can computers do abstract art? Or write a song about what Christmas feels like? Or make up a game?

This is what defines us from computers, as well as Consicoussness. It is Creativity, the ability to make up stuff, like songs, games, art…

Of course, at the moment a computer could possibly recreate Picasso or Motzart, but that is Copying, not Creativity. Creativity is about Creating.

And does a computer have emphathy, the ability to understand how other people are feeling? Can they communicate, and understand what they are saying?

Biologically, our neurons do not function like computer transistors. Yes, they fire signals, but they make new connections, and they can fire in an infinate number of ways. A computer will pass signals as 1 or 0, but we can have partial signals, like ‘nearly halfway open’ or ‘partway closed’.

There's nothing stopping us from recreating neurons. We have already done it really. It's just a matter of complexity. Everything you mentioned can be done with a computer, we just haven't made it yet, because it is so advanced.

Originally Posted by hgld1234

Can computers do abstract art? Or write a song about what Christmas feels like? Or make up a game?

This is what defines us from computers, as well as Consicoussness. It is Creativity, the ability to make up stuff, like songs, games, art…

They can't do that now. However, as Marvo said, there's nothing stopping them from doing so at any point in the future. We as humans just need to figure it out. Consciousness is something being studied actively, and as of now, it appears that the source of consciousness is, indeed, the brain, rather than any outside identity like a soul.

Of course, at the moment a computer could possibly recreate Picasso or Motzart, but that is Copying, not Creativity. Creativity is about Creating.

Agreed. And I can assure you that one day, computers will be creative and will create.

And does a computer have emphathy, the ability to understand how other people are feeling? Can they communicate, and understand what they are saying?

They will. Again, emotion is derived from the brain. We just have to figure out how to recreate that inside a computer, which we will.

Biologically, our neurons do not function like computer transistors. Yes, they fire signals, but they make new connections, and they can fire in an infinate number of ways. A computer will pass signals as 1 or 0, but we can have partial signals, like ‘nearly halfway open’ or ‘partway closed’.

You are correct in that traditional computer circuitry does not act like a human brain, which is likely why we'll be seeing new technologies develop as progress is made with artificial intelligence. Something will be made that allows the computer to change its own wiring, so to speak, in order to learn and retain what is valuable and eliminate the crap. We have seen robotics that actually do learn and do alter their behavior with experience. That technology exists. As for computer signals, neurons really are a one-way street. Ions jump the synapse. That action can't be undone. In a normally-functioning neuron, the message will be transmitted as a one or a zero, so to speak. What can happen, though, is if a signal is poorly received. This usually occurs in damaged neurons. And who's to say that computer pieces don't get damaged or wear out? We're more like a computer than I think you think. Granted, not like most or any computers in existence today, but the way in which our brains operate is surprisingly similar. Perhaps a more accurate statement would be that computers are like us.

Which is to say, any simulation of reality.

I've never heard anyone give me any semblance of an argument that a conscious system embedded in silicon and electrons is more absurd than a conscious system embedded in water, fat, protein, salt and sugar.

Perhaps a more accurate statement would be that computers are like us.

Still not accurate. How well can a computer multitask? In such a way that they can continually record and download a hi def movie, as well as being able to kick a ball around, and imagine themselves playing for the world cup? How well would they manage? Chances are, they crash. Can't handle the data overload. We don't crash when we do that.

And let's say our robot fell over? Let's say it didn't cause much of an impact, but now our robot-guy is on the floor, he can't do the complex motor movements to pick himself up. We, on the other hand, can, given the same circumstances.

Originally Posted by hgld1234

Still not accurate. How well can a computer multitask? In such a way that they can continually record and download a hi def movie, as well as being able to kick a ball around, and imagine themselves playing for the world cup? How well would they manage? Chances are, they crash. Can't handle the data overload. We don't crash when we do that.

And let's say our robot fell over? Let's say it didn't cause much of an impact, but now our robot-guy is on the floor, he can't do the complex motor movements to pick himself up. We, on the other hand, can, given the same circumstances.

We have already made robots that are perfectly capable of falling over and standing up again, repeatedly. If such a "data overload" actually happened, the only thing it would prove is that the robot isn't very well happened. And you don't have to look very far to find situations where humans feel overwhelmed with input, resulting in them shutting out certain factors of a situation, so mistakes are made, or more accurately I guess, the humans crash.

Indeed. There's an obvious conflation in that post between can meaning 'can computers do this now' or can meaning 'can computers do this hypothetically'.

If we had the right software, there's no reason a computer couldn't do it right now. They're turing complete; they can emulate any deterministic system.

Originally Posted by Xei

they can emulate any deterministic system.

Which is to say, any simulation of reality.

Originally Posted by ClouD

Electrical signals to and fro, bodily processes, but where do WE come into it? Do we actually come into it?

I guess this can all be answered on many different levels. If I could say it briefly, I'd say "we" are part of it all as observers, and seemingly as human beings, and can interact with the landscape of phenomena before us, but we have no volition over why it is all here. This means not even a superdupa-computer can ever possibly demonstrate it as it is.

@ Mario92 - You're still missing that as such humans cannot create consciousness - that which is the substrate of knowing that they are created in the first place! You may think that everything about the matter that can be explained in conceptual terms can be created and formed in causal systems, however this never grasps the essential context in which it has the capacity to exist - which is doing so spontaneously and cannot be affected or caused. Thus it follows that it cannot be programmed either, because it is not tangible. In trying to program consciousness, one is actually trying to play God. Well if computers could be exactly the same as conscious human beings, they wouldn't be computers.

Originally Posted by Xei

Indeed. There's an obvious conflation in that post between can meaning 'can computers do this now' or can meaning 'can computers do this hypothetically'.

If we had the right software, there's no reason a computer couldn't do it right now. They're turing complete; they can emulate any deterministic system.

I've never heard anyone give me any semblance of an argument that a conscious system embedded in silicon and electrons is more absurd than a conscious system embedded in water, fat, protein, salt and sugar.

I can tell you how this is more absurd:

One is a system that scientists can easily identify with, prove, measure, emulate and simulate. This system is of the world and universe as we know it, and what is part of this includes the human body, the earth, even to beyond the galaxies, to name a few things. I will stress that, although this system has almost an infinite number of components, it is still subject to the error in human interpretation.

The other is an improvable, diffuse, non-linear, unpredictable "system" and precedes everything we can speak of. That system is consciousness. I cannot show you what it is, but without it, nothing exists whatsoever.

The main difference between a conscious system in silicon and electrons, and one in water, fat, protein, salt and sugar, is that the former system supposedly needs consciousness to be "embedded". In the latter system - in what is actually the case of living human species - there was no consciousness "embedded" to begin with, but it is intrinsic. It has always been here since we were born, as far as we can remember, and it's beyond our comprehension why; the implication is that it is beyond all cause.

Originally Posted by really

The main difference between a conscious system in silicon and electrons, and one in water, fat, protein, salt and sugar, is that the former system supposedly needs consciousness to be "embedded". In the latter system - in what is actually the case of living human species - there was no consciousness "embedded" to begin with, but it is intrinsic. It has always been here since we were born, as far as we can remember, and it's beyond our comprehension why; the implication is that it is beyond all cause.

What is consciousness? Is it just the element of our psyche we could recognise as the "observer", the elementary thing behind all thoughts? Or is it a collection of computations raging from what we call memories, language, concepts etc. After assuming (which in this case hopefully isn't seen as some giant leap of faith) the fact that we are just a part of this universe, then it's not too absurd to speculate on other things being conscious like us, if the situation allows. And we usually do... see certain other animals about as conscious as us. Why stop at computers?

You said that biological computers have an intrinsic consciousness... well firstly, the way orgainc computers emerged is completely different from the way technological ones did. And anything they might lack can easily be attributed to a different evolutionary path. Secondly, where is this intrinsic consciousness you say biological things have? As far as I know, a real sense of self emerges in a later stage of a childs development. And even if we're talking about the "mysterious elementary observer", as far as we know it's something that emerges in our brains and if we dare to continue, in the brains of other creatures, still not making it exclusive for biological life... Saying that a consciousness from a biological computer is grounded in reality, but at the same without cause, is absurd. Either you decide to be a solipsist or you agree to a reality. You can't have it both ways.

We don't know if computers are conscious, because we aren't conditioned to percieve them that way, if they don't act and look like us. And the only reason we might say we have to embed consciousness into a computer, is because we want a specific kind of consciousness, a human one. We want to create an AI that can tell us it is conscious. Because that's the level at which we define and percieve it. It's possible that the Earth is somehow metaphysically "conscious" and that you serve it as a bit of information, or that the communication and collective actions of a bacterial colony becomes "conscious"... it just doesn't help us because we need it to interact at our level. Anyway i've gone a bit of course, but the point is that I still haven't been given an actual reason to see artificial consciousness as impossible.

Still not accurate. How well can a computer multitask? In such a way that they can continually record and download a hi def movie, as well as being able to kick a ball around, and imagine themselves playing for the world cup? How well would they manage? Chances are, they crash. Can't handle the data overload. We don't crash when we do that.

And let's say our robot fell over? Let's say it didn't cause much of an impact, but now our robot-guy is on the floor, he can't do the complex motor movements to pick himself up. We, on the other hand, can, given the same circumstances.

You keep ignoring everybody's responses. Three people have said to you know why they think this is wrong but you're still posting your original argument.

the former system supposedly needs consciousness to be "embedded".

At the moment I don't understand your point; could you elaborate on what you mean by this?

Originally Posted by Xei

At the moment I don't understand your point; could you elaborate on what you mean by this?

I was referring to what you said:

"I've never heard anyone give me any semblance of an argument that a conscious system embedded in silicon and electrons is more absurd than a conscious system embedded in water, fat, protein, salt and sugar. "

Consciousness embedded, or consciousness system embedded, maybe you can explain more on this?

'Our consciousness is embedded in our brains' means that the physical processes in our brains are what lead to our consciousness.

We have already made robots that are perfectly capable of falling over and standing up again, repeatedly. If such a "data overload" actually happened, the only thing it would prove is that the robot isn't very well happened. And you don't have to look very far to find situations where humans feel overwhelmed with input, resulting in them shutting out certain factors of a situation, so mistakes are made, or more accurately I guess, the humans crash.

Yeah, but name one football-kicking robot that can listen to crowd roars and video what is happening all at the same time…

But I have just read somewhere that people have created a robot where people can pick themselves up with.

Also, most of the time, if humans get too much sensory input to them (I think) they can block out stuff they don't need. But they then can do the other stuff fine, usually. I can stop listining to bird tweet if it is annoying me, and do homework ok. But a computer would try to process the bird tweet, to a point where it can't work properly. And s l o w s d o w n t o a p o I n t w h e r e I t j u s t b e c o m e s s o A N N O Y I N G.
Alright, sometimes two things don't mix eg pneumatic drill and homework. But we can decide what to do so we don't ‘crash’.
Also, I tried to have three programs happening at once on my computer this morning, and it couldn't do any of them. The programs just crashed. However, people can do three things EASY! At the moment, I am reading on the screen, typing and thinking about what to write next. Three things- can Mr Computer do that?

But in some ways, computers are similar to people in raw processing power in logical situations eg maths. But is a brilliant answer in a burning house the smartest move? And yes, AI could make computers more like us, with consciousness, but it's not here yet. If it ever will be is beyond our present knoweldge. And I am talking about the present, not some to-come future. For that is what AI is. In the future.

Originally Posted by hgld1234

Yeah, but name one football-kicking robot that can listen to crowd roars and video what is happening all at the same time…

But I have just read somewhere that people have created a robot where people can pick themselves up with.

Also, most of the time, if humans get too much sensory input to them (I think) they can block out stuff they don't need. But they then can do the other stuff fine, usually. I can stop listining to bird tweet if it is annoying me, and do homework ok. But a computer would try to process the bird tweet, to a point where it can't work properly. And s l o w s d o w n t o a p o I n t w h e r e I t j u s t b e c o m e s s o A N N O Y I N G.
Alright, sometimes two things don't mix eg pneumatic drill and homework. But we can decide what to do so we don't ‘crash’.
Also, I tried to have three programs happening at once on my computer this morning, and it couldn't do any of them. The programs just crashed. However, people can do three things EASY! At the moment, I am reading on the screen, typing and thinking about what to write next. Three things- can Mr Computer do that?

But in some ways, computers are similar to people in raw processing power in logical situations eg maths. But is a brilliant answer in a burning house the smartest move? And yes, AI could make computers more like us, with consciousness, but it's not here yet. If it ever will be is beyond our present knoweldge. And I am talking about the present, not some to-come future. For that is what AI is. In the future.

You clearly have absolutely no grasp, at all, of how computers work.

Additionally, if your computer can't run three programs, you've got a horrible computer. My computer currently has 68 proccesses running, as an example of what a computer can do, just when under low pressure.

Thank you. Now tell me how computers do work, please.