Thread: How are we not a computer?

How are we not a forklift? All that contraction and elongation to raise and lower objects...

To suggest that we are identical to a device we've created to augment any subset of our activity/ability overlooks the greater context of our existence. How are we not a computer? We're not nearly as good at maths but are much better dancers.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

How are we not a forklift? All that contraction and elongation to raise and lower objects...

To suggest that we are identical to a device we've created to augment any subset of our activity/ability overlooks the greater context of our existence. How are we not a computer? We're not nearly as good at maths but are much better dancers.

A computer could dance better if programmed rightly.
And what do you mean by existence? This is what I'm trying to get at, what are we that ticks? I'm not seeing much of a difference between humans and a computer.

Brains and computers are both just mechanisms for running algorithms.

The crucial thing I think is that the algorithm enacted by our brains allows for conception, which no computer can currently do (although that may change), and thence we have emotions, philosophies and art, creativity, etcetera.

most of my body is as you see it here, but my higher brain functions have been transferred to the computer. to remove me from this interface would mean... my death.

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.

We are the result of the processes and directives that have created and "programmed" us. WE comes into play with the end result. WE are the final output.

It is really late, so it will be short.

I do think there is a connected between the operation of a computer and the human mind.

Well, we do compute don't we? - in the most broadest sense.

This is the basics of how consciousness works.

1. Input (Senses, generator of experience, and more fundamentally bits of information)
2. Process (We access, interpret and compares the input and new data with previous experience and rule-set/purpose/moral/programming)
3. Self-Modification (Changing the configuration of the being/self to a more profitable state, improving by experience, "self-programming", resulting in a change in future input)
4. Repeat this process. (A very complex self-modifying system which decreases the entropy of the information which is consists of. Or changing 1's or 0's into a better and more profitable configuration, a feedback loop.)

A computer can also be conscious, it needs to be complex enough though.

For a computer to be conscious, among others it needs the capability of self-modification, to change it's own software.

Now.. goodnight

Originally Posted by ClouD

A computer could dance better if programmed rightly.

A very good team of programmers may or may not get a computer to dance well (however they contrive to make a computer dance at all), but it begs the question of whether the computer is dancing, or the people who programmed it. It's very likely a computer cannot be made equally satisfying to dance with or observe as even a reasonably good human dancer.

Originally Posted by ClouD

And what do you mean by existence? This is what I'm trying to get at, what are we that ticks? I'm not seeing much of a difference between humans and a computer.

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

We are feedback: the relationships between innumerable, interweaving systems cohering into a pattern that remains recognizable for a time but never, for any period of time, exhibits the fixed qualities we seek when asking "what we are." Thoughts are particularly intricate and delicate sub-patterns of feedback relying entirely upon the coarser and larger sub-patterns, identical with and extending from them.

Computers are a tool which mimics and amplifies only a narrow range of a subset of the total activity that is us. They're identical in this sense to a forklift or an apartment building.

is it possible that my computer is slightly conscious?

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.

if you're reading this post (i.e., you were interested enough in the name of this thread to click), you need to read 'Gödel, Escher, Bach'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel,_Escher,_Bach

it can be a bit basic and/or 'cute' depending on your technical background but it's a good read regardless.

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).

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

To suggest that we are identical to a device we've created to augment any subset of our activity/ability overlooks the greater context of our existence.

This.. By far the best answer. Everything else is irrelevant.

And what is our existence? If going to those lengths then our existence must be defined as to how it is different to the existence of a computer (it does exist too).

Originally Posted by ClouD

And what is our existence? If going to those lengths then our existence must be defined as to how it is different to the existence of a computer (it does exist too).

You can't ignore the significance of our having brought computers into being. We did it so that computers could mimic and amplify a specific area of our activity. The computer's existence derives from our own, and only a narrow sliver of it.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

You can't ignore the significance of our having brought computers into being. We did it so that computers could mimic and amplify a specific area of our activity. The computer's existence derives from our own, and only a narrow sliver of it.

Well, for now, anyway. The creation of AI may very well change all of that...

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

You can't ignore the significance of our having brought computers into being. We did it so that computers could mimic and amplify a specific area of our activity. The computer's existence derives from our own, and only a narrow sliver of it.

Yes, the computer's existence derives from us, but we derive from something else. This is the way of the fractal nature of consciousness.

Computers will create too. That creation is derived from computers, which is derived from humans, which is derived by something else, which is derived by something else.

We are not computers, we are consciousness, computers can be consciousness. That is the link.

We are Creator and Creation, and so is all.

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.

I think the entire question is sort of 'reductio ad absurdum'. In reality, computers are much better computers than we are. The way we process the majority of our information is much less specific and much more vague than a computer. We don't remember specific instances from our past, we don't draw definite conclusions from our environment. We create interpretations from our perceptions and often remember only the 'gist' of what has happened.

Not only that, but the contents of our memories are constantly changing and cannot be trusted to remain accurate for even a few hours. Also, the actual input that we take in (our perceptions) is altered by our pre-existing biases. We see what we want to see and not exactly what is really presented to us.

The ways in which we process information isn't even remotely similar to how a computer works. Not only is our brain intrinsically non-serial (as opposed to a computer processor) but our mental processes don't even take place entirely within the circuit (neurons). The magnetic field surrounding the brain plays an integral role in how the brain works. The field can cause neurons to fire and yet the firing of neurons is what creates the field in the first place.

I won't even really get into the possibility of our brains utilizing quantum processes because that is an entirely different discussion in itself, but I will point out that the dark adapted eye is capable of detecting single photons. Once you get into the realm of the subatomic, all correlations to macroscale phenomena are completely useless.

The ways in which we process information isn't even remotely similar to how a computer works. Not only is our brain intrinsically non-serial (as opposed to a computer processor) but our mental processes don't even take place entirely within the circuit (neurons). The magnetic field surrounding the brain plays an integral role in how the brain works. The field can cause neurons to fire and yet the firing of neurons is what creates the field in the first place.

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

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

I won't even really get into the possibility of our brains utilizing quantum processes because that is an entirely different discussion in itself, but I will point out that the dark adapted eye is capable of detecting single photons. Once you get into the realm of the subatomic, all correlations to macroscale phenomena are completely useless.

I don't see what the importance of 'quantumly' random inputs is. You easily build a device which fed the same information into a computer.

With regards to quantum effects affecting mental processes themselves: studies show that the parts involved in neuron function are too large for quantum effects to be important.

'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.

Disagree really. I suppose it is dualism in a sense to suggest that the software has an objective existence apart from the physical neurons, but that is not a contradiction, because consciousness is (patently) an objective entity which only exists when the software is present, so the software must also exist objectively. What matter should I class as part of myself in your framework? Do I include the water in my cells? You'd have to really. But do I include the water vapour in a state of equilibrium around my skin? What about the water which has left my body, or which is yet to enter it? How about the bacterial cells which vastly outnumber my body cells, but which are vital to my body's function? What about the neutral cells, or the degenerate bacteria? The viruses? How about the tapeworm in my gut? Is that not a separate entity?