Thread: How are we not a computer?

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 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.

Originally Posted by Praise

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.

You're going to make me say it again, aren't you?

Your thoughts, actions, and decisions are all determined by your neural network; the brain. The brain operates on chemo-electrical impulses by connecting with other neurons and sending chemical signals back and forth using ions (charged atoms). What caused those atoms to be there, though? Why did they glomp together with other atoms and form more complex structures? Why did they decide to jump the synapse and continue on the signal? Chain reactions. That's all it is.

An analogy, if you will: you mentioned creativity, right? What is the root of your creative nature and your creative ideas, eh? Information you have assimilated throughout your life, combined and thrown together in new ways. But say you come up with something totally original, something the world has never seen before. Nothing even remotely like it on the face of the planet. Unlikely, but what if you did? Are you unique? Do you control atoms at the subatomic level within your brain? No. Your brain directs other parts of your body to interact with matter and the physical world. As I sit here and write this out, my neurons are firing within my brain. I do not control them; I never have.

Mario92 it's nice to think you are not in control of your own actions isn't it.

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 Praise

Mario92 it's nice to think you are not in control of your own actions isn't it.

Troll?

No, who the hell said that? Certainly not I. For all intents and purposes, it would really be best to go through your life as if you were in control of your thoughts and actions, regardless if you are or not.

As a side note, would it kill you to think about your posts for more than a few seconds? I would like to have a rational and civilized debate on the matter, if it is all the same to you.

Originally Posted by Praise

Mario92 it's nice to think you are not in control of your own actions isn't it.

Ah, the good old "I don't understand what the other person is saying, so I'll just attack".

If you subdued your outbursts of arrogance and stepped off of your percieved moral high ground, then you'd know he never said he wasn't in control of his own actions. He is saying that there is not some soul which decides according to some free will, but that the decisions we make are essentially predetermined, following cause and effect. Whatever he does by his own accord will always be percieved by himself as something he has done. Even if from a more objective standpoint it's not his fault.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Ah, the good old "I don't understand what the other person is saying, so I'll just attack".

If you subdued your outbursts of arrogance and stepped off of your percieved moral high ground, then you'd know he never said he wasn't in control of his own actions. He is saying that there is not some soul which decides according to some free will, but that the decisions we make are essentially predetermined, following cause and effect. Whatever he does by his own accord will always be percieved by himself as something he has done. Even if from a more objective standpoint it's not his fault.

THAT.

Thanks, mate.

Originally Posted by Praise

Why argue against free will when having control of your life is a more practical living standard to have. Besides that which came first the cause or the effect?

1. A quest for truth. Nothing more.

2. Well, if my idea holds water, then all that is, was, and shall be is the ultimate result of the Big Bang. The BB set everything in motion, from which the vast majority of particles have not strayed from a relatively predictable path (with the exception of electrons and some very small particles, which we don't completely understand, but are nevertheless beyond our control).

1. A quest for truth. Nothing more.

I hope it is a quest for truth and not a bias.

2. Well, if my idea holds water, then all that is, was, and shall be is the ultimate result of the Big Bang. The BB set everything in motion, from which the vast majority of particles have not strayed from a relatively predictable path (with the exception of electrons and some very small particles, which we don't completely understand, but are nevertheless beyond our control).

Ok how did this big bang suddenly appear out of nothing.

And what came first the cause or the effect.

Originally Posted by Praise

Ok how did this big bang suddenly appear out of nothing.

That is a question mankind will debate for ages and likely not come any closer to the truth, but I highly doubt it was the act of any sort of supreme being. Far too many variables, not enough evidence. Most likely, it was caused by some sort of explainable phenomena. M-theory has a strong case. It suggests that our universe arose when two or more dimensions collided, which would account (at least partly) for the uneven distribution of matter within the universe. Another theory is that the Universe is simply timeless, and the Big Bang was a result of the collapse of the previous universe. There is currently strong evidence against this theory, but it remains on the table nonetheless. Some have said that our universe is the result of beings of other universes creating it, which isn't entirely unrealistic. Again, the M-theory tells us that we could very well create a universe separate and independent of our own with relatively little effort. Whether or not this is true is another thing, but interesting to think about.

EDIT: And what on earth do you mean by, "what came first the cause or the effect?" S'plain.

Originally Posted by Praise

I hope it is a quest for truth and not a bias.



Ok how did this big bang suddenly appear out of nothing.

And what came first the cause or the effect.

The cause, but even before that came cause's cause, and before that the cause's cause's cause, and before that came the cause's cause's cause's cause, and even before that there was the cause's cause's cause's cause's...

Originally Posted by Mario92

That is a question mankind will debate for ages and likely not come any closer to the truth, but I highly doubt it was the act of any sort of supreme being. Far too many variables, not enough evidence. Most likely, it was caused by some sort of explainable phenomena. M-theory has a strong case. It suggests that our universe arose when two or more dimensions collided, which would account (at least partly) for the uneven distribution of matter within the universe. Another theory is that the Universe is simply timeless, and the Big Bang was a result of the collapse of the previous universe. There is currently strong evidence against this theory, but it remains on the table nonetheless. Some have said that our universe is the result of beings of other universes creating it, which isn't entirely unrealistic. Again, the M-theory tells us that we could very well create a universe separate and independent of our own with relatively little effort. Whether or not this is true is another thing, but interesting to think about.

EDIT: And what on earth do you mean by, "what came first the cause or the effect?" S'plain.

Big Bang coming out of nothing is a logical paradox.. which most of science can't answer. Though it becomes logical and obvious in digital physics, but it still avoids the masses..

Introduction: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0801/0801.0337.pdf

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Big Bang coming out of nothing is a logical paradox.. which most of science can't answer. Though it becomes logical and obvious in digital physics, but it still avoids the masses..

Introduction: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0801/0801.0337.pdf

Please tell me you're kidding...

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Big Bang coming out of nothing is a logical paradox.. which most of science can't answer. Though it becomes logical and obvious in digital physics, but it still avoids the masses..

Introduction: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0801/0801.0337.pdf

You correctly pointed out there's a paradox but saying it lies in the big bang is incorrect. The paradox comes from the nature of existence: whatever you try to use as an explanation for the origin of the universe it will always come down to either something having always existed or reaction with no action, both are perceived by our mind as paradoxical.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

You correctly pointed out there's a paradox but saying it lies in the big bang is incorrect. The paradox comes from the nature of existence: whatever you try to use as an explanation for the origin of the universe it will always come down to either something having always existed or reaction with no action, both are perceived by our mind as paradoxical.

The paradox is not about the big bang, because there is no problem explaining the big bang by using the virtual model. The paradox arises with the "Objective Reality" model.

Page 11 The physical world as a virtual reality, Brian Whitworth

"Where did the universe come from?
The traditional view of our universe was that as an objective reality it “just is”, and so has always
existed. While its parts may transform, its total is in a “steady state” that always was and always
will be. The alternative view is that the universe did not always exist, but arose at some specific
point, which also created space and time. During the last century these two theories have battled it
out for supremacy on the stage of science. Steady-state theory proponents included respected
physicists, who thought that the idea that the entire universe expanded from a single point was
highly unlikely to be true. However Hubble’s finding that all the stars around us are red-shifted
suggested that the entire universe is indeed expanding at the speed of light. Now an expanding
universe has to expand from somewhere, so scientists could run the expansion backwards to a
source, a “big bang” that began our universe about 15 billion years ago. The discovery of cosmic
background radiation, left over from the big bang, has largely confirmed the theory today in the
minds of most physicists.
Big bang theory sidesteps questions like: “What existed before the big bang?” by answering:
“There was no time or space before the big bang”, but if time and space suddenly “appeared” for
no apparent reason at the big bang, could they not equally suddenly disappear tomorrow? Big
bang theory implies a dependent universe, so what is it dependent upon is a valid question even
without time and space. If nothing in our universe is created from nothing, how can an entire
universe come from nothing? That our universe arose from nothing is not just incredible, it is
inconceivable. One can state the problems simply:
1. What caused the big bang?
2. What caused space to start?
3. What caused time to start?
4. How can a big bang arise when there is no time or space?
5. How can space be caused if there is no “there” for a cause to exist within?
6. How can time be started if there is no time flow for the starting to occur within?
The big bang contradicts any theory that assumes the universe is objectively real and complete in
itself. How can an objective reality, existing in and of itself, be created out of nothing? The
failure of the steady state theory of the universe removes a cornerstone of support for the
objective reality hypothesis. In contrast virtual reality theory fits well with a big bang. No virtual
reality can have existed forever, since it needs a processor to start it up. All virtual realities “start
up” at a specific moment of time, typically with a sudden influx of information. Every time one
starts a computer game or boots up a computer, such a “big bang” occurs. From the perspective of
the virtual world itself, its creation is always from “nothing”, as before the virtual world startup
there was indeed no time or space as defined by that world. There was nothing relative to that
world because the world itself did not exist. It is a hallmark of virtual realities that they must
come into existence at a specific event in their space and time, which also initiates their spacetime
fabric. Note that in a virtual world there is no logical reason why all initiating information
cannot initially “point” to a single arbitrary location, i.e. no reason why an entire universe cannot
exist at a single point. In VR theory the big bang was simply when our universe was “booted up”.
The big bang is an accepted aspect of modern physics that VR theory accommodates but OR
theory does not. It illustrates that VR/OR arguments can be resolved by appeal to experimental
data from this world. Just as the steady state versus big bang theories were resolved by research,
so can the more general virtual vs. objective theoretical contrast be resolved. To decide if the
world is objective or virtual we simply need to consider what data from the world is telling us."

Originally Posted by Praise

And what came first the cause or the effect.

It was God.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

It was God.

And where did God come from?

*watches flames ignite*

Originally Posted by Kromoh

And where did God come from?

*watches flames ignite*

He's standing on a turtle, and it's turtles all the way down.

But then, turtles came before God?



This turtle is in shock.

...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.

You seem to have ignored everything I've said.

Firstly, I'm talking about systems which are identical. Hardly 'bearing little or no resemblance'.

Secondly, no such system has ever been created on a computer, and nobody claims to have created such a system.

Again, computers currently don't 'replicate the full spectrum of activity', but there's no reason why somebody couldn't build one. Which people are indeed doing.

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

That's really a non-issue. If I do, then computers can be 'us'. If I don't, then I suppose computers can't, because to be us you'd have to have limbs and things, which isn't what a computer is.

'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.

I know that's what you were trying to say. That's also what I was trying to say. That's why I referred Xaq to your post. :l

And what if we're assuming an erroneous successive association, that is, to suppose that an effect must have a cause independent of itself. It seems intuitive to suppose that such a dissociation is illogical, but....

As for the original question:

We are not computers by virtue of not being our function - if every activity observed defines 'me', then a computer could replicate such activity and thereby be denoted as 'me'.

As for what is 'me'? Myself cannot be localised to a specific area: slice me into many pieces and to what part would you designate as 'me'? Failure of such an exercise either indicates: 1. that physically, I am every part of me - a whole, or 2. that physically, 'I' do not exist - me in this sense would refer to my expression in and of itself.

Someone explain how computers could emulate 'qualia' - in my opinion, this, fundamentally, is what differentiates us from computers, and is what belies and forms myself.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

The paradox is not about the big bang, because there is no problem explaining the big bang by using the virtual model. The paradox arises with the "Objective Reality" model.

Page 11 The physical world as a virtual reality, Brian Whitworth

"Where did the universe come from?
The traditional view of our universe was that as an objective reality it “just is”, and so has always
existed. While its parts may transform, its total is in a “steady state” that always was and always
will be. The alternative view is that the universe did not always exist, but arose at some specific
point, which also created space and time. During the last century these two theories have battled it
out for supremacy on the stage of science. Steady-state theory proponents included respected
physicists, who thought that the idea that the entire universe expanded from a single point was
highly unlikely to be true. However Hubble’s finding that all the stars around us are red-shifted
suggested that the entire universe is indeed expanding at the speed of light. Now an expanding
universe has to expand from somewhere, so scientists could run the expansion backwards to a
source, a “big bang” that began our universe about 15 billion years ago. The discovery of cosmic
background radiation, left over from the big bang, has largely confirmed the theory today in the
minds of most physicists.
Big bang theory sidesteps questions like: “What existed before the big bang?” by answering:
“There was no time or space before the big bang”, but if time and space suddenly “appeared” for
no apparent reason at the big bang, could they not equally suddenly disappear tomorrow? Big
bang theory implies a dependent universe, so what is it dependent upon is a valid question even
without time and space. If nothing in our universe is created from nothing, how can an entire
universe come from nothing? That our universe arose from nothing is not just incredible, it is
inconceivable. One can state the problems simply:
1. What caused the big bang?
2. What caused space to start?
3. What caused time to start?
4. How can a big bang arise when there is no time or space?
5. How can space be caused if there is no “there” for a cause to exist within?
6. How can time be started if there is no time flow for the starting to occur within?
The big bang contradicts any theory that assumes the universe is objectively real and complete in
itself. How can an objective reality, existing in and of itself, be created out of nothing? The
failure of the steady state theory of the universe removes a cornerstone of support for the
objective reality hypothesis. In contrast virtual reality theory fits well with a big bang. No virtual
reality can have existed forever, since it needs a processor to start it up. All virtual realities “start
up” at a specific moment of time, typically with a sudden influx of information. Every time one
starts a computer game or boots up a computer, such a “big bang” occurs. From the perspective of
the virtual world itself, its creation is always from “nothing”, as before the virtual world startup
there was indeed no time or space as defined by that world. There was nothing relative to that
world because the world itself did not exist. It is a hallmark of virtual realities that they must
come into existence at a specific event in their space and time, which also initiates their spacetime
fabric. Note that in a virtual world there is no logical reason why all initiating information
cannot initially “point” to a single arbitrary location, i.e. no reason why an entire universe cannot
exist at a single point. In VR theory the big bang was simply when our universe was “booted up”.
The big bang is an accepted aspect of modern physics that VR theory accommodates but OR
theory does not. It illustrates that VR/OR arguments can be resolved by appeal to experimental
data from this world. Just as the steady state versus big bang theories were resolved by research,
so can the more general virtual vs. objective theoretical contrast be resolved. To decide if the
world is objective or virtual we simply need to consider what data from the world is telling us."

"Virtual reality theory" solves nothing. It simply replaces "the big bang started the universe" with "a processor(or whatever) started the big bang which started the universe", it's adding an unnecessary clutter to the problem. What started the processor then? The paradox always persists.

And contrary to what the quoted text implies, the big bang theory doesn't say anything about what there was or not before it. It just says our Universe (at least as we know it) started then.