Thread: How are we not a computer?

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 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 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.

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

Originally Posted by Praise

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

Ah, but it is not random. That is the point. Your brain "decides" before you consciously make the decision. Besides that, this only further backs up the points I have already made on determinism.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Ah, but it is not random. That is the point. Your brain "decides" before you consciously make the decision. Besides that, this only further backs up the points I have already made on determinism.

It only means that the subconscious mind is involved too. It doesn't mean you don't have control over what you decide. We made random generators....It's easy to be random. That's what creativity is.