Thread: How are we not a computer?

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.

Originally Posted by Abra

We are organic computers.

People in this thread need to stop comparing us to today's computers, and possibilities of computers, and start comparing us to how a computer works. Start comparing us to the definition of a computer.

We process, generalize, project, and adapt. We are vessels of DNA. Love, art, motivation, inspiration, are all products of our evolution. The difference is, instead of it "being programmed by someone for a purpose," these side-programs develop in response to the environment (the ability to respond and adapt, being our overarching program).

But why do computers transcend the metaphor that has applied to all our technologies, and establish total identity with what we are? What makes you so certain that we aren't simply infatuated with the most recent development in our technical abilities? The definition of a computer is a machine to do maths, identical in principle to a calculator. That we have devised myriad ways to make maths simulate a variety of systems does not make math-machines equal in principle to what we are. Whatever we can program machines to simulate, the granularity of our real environs is greater, because ultimately it is infinite.

Going back to Mario's post, it is not possible to project that our consciousness is inextricably derived from the physical processes of the universe without also accepting the corollary that physical existence depends upon the processes of consciousness for any specific values to be derived.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

But why do computers transcend the metaphor that has applied to all our technologies, and establish total identity with what we are? What makes you so certain that we aren't simply infatuated with the most recent development in our technical abilities? The definition of a computer is a machine to do maths, identical in principle to a calculator. That we have devised myriad ways to make maths simulate a variety of systems does not make math-machines equal in principle to what we are. Whatever we can program machines to simulate, the granularity of our real environs is greater, because ultimately it is infinite.

Like a computer, we are not somehow outside of ourselves. Like a computer, we are not somehow immune to our programming. We are advanced programming.

We are not literal computers in the sense that we aren't tractors, yes. That's obviously not what ClouD's asking. He's poking at a computer's deterministic nature and its programmed mission ("meaning"), and comparing it to humans. I'm saying that we aren't different, that we're still bound by the same laws except while computers are programmed by an external body for a specific purpose beneficial to a user, we're programmed by the environment, for survival (and the only reason we're here and programmed for survival is because the ones without the motivation to survive died).

Originally Posted by Abra

Like a computer, we are not somehow outside of ourselves. Like a computer, we are not somehow immune to our programming. We are advanced programming.

We are not literal computers in the sense that we aren't tractors, yes. That's obviously not what ClouD's asking. He's poking at a computer's deterministic nature and its programmed mission ("meaning"), and comparing it to humans. I'm saying that we aren't different, that we're still bound by the same laws except while computers are programmed by an external body for a specific purpose beneficial to a user, we're programmed by the environment, for survival (and the only reason we're here and programmed for survival is because the ones without the motivation to survive died).

One can use programming as a metaphor for our interaction with our environment, both as individuals and as a population over generations, but the metaphor only goes so far. It's most applicable to neural activity, but neural activity isn't the sole actor in the call-and-response with peers and environment that shapes us and guides our actions, and binary math machines don't even come close to emulating our neural activity. Programming does not come into existence spontaneously via feedback and continually rewrite itself, with actions determining the 'programming' to the same extent that the 'programming' determines the actions. We can talk about being "programmed to survive," but it's a metaphor that becomes obscuring rather than illuminating if taken too far.

If we ever create a genuine artificial intelligence, it may include computers and computer networks, but it won't BE a computer because computing is not enough. 'You' are not software that just happens to be running on a pile of meat. That position is just spiritual dualism in a modern guise. 'You' are the total embodied experience of being you, including and requiring the meat: not a ghost in the machine, but the machine. A brain in a jar couldn't pass a Turing test any more than a Commodore 64 could.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Programming does not come into existence spontaneously via feedback and continually rewrite itself, with actions determining the 'programming' to the same extent that the 'programming' determines the actions. We can talk about being "programmed to survive," but it's a metaphor that becomes obscuring rather than illuminating if taken too far.

Programming does not come into existence spontaneously. Agreed.

Programming can rewrite itself. There are robots that can predict the outcomes of actions using internal modeling, robots that can learn without a physical trial-and-error.

If we ever create a genuine artificial intelligence, it may include computers and computer networks, but it won't BE a computer because computing is not enough.

What human processes can a computer/machine not emulate? How is computing "not enough?" What else would it be built off of?

'You' are not software that just happens to be running on a pile of meat. That position is just spiritual dualism in a modern guise. 'You' are the total embodied experience of being you, including and requiring the meat: not a ghost in the machine, but the machine. A brain in a jar couldn't pass a Turing test any more than a Commodore 64 could.

I agree with this, too.

Fun Fact: People were once computers way back in the day that had to do some big math calculations or something. Then the actual computers were invented (EVAC wasn't it?) to do math.