NationStates Jolt Archive

There have many references lately to the human being as a computer, and I get the feeling that, for some at least, it is more than a simple analogy. There is a genuine belief that a human being is nothing more than a biological computer (the mind/brain analogy to software/hardware, the end-of-life analogy of a computer shutting off, etc). Say it isn't so.

There have many references lately to the human being as a computer, and I get the feeling that, for some at least, it is more than a simple analogy. There is a genuine belief that a human being is nothing more than a biological computer (the mind/brain analogy to software/hardware, the end-of-life analogy of a computer shutting off, etc). Say it isn't so.
Depends on your deffinition of computers

We are a logical construct yes ... but we process things heuristicly rather then lineraly so not really like a silicon computer no

Input.

There have many references lately to the human being as a computer, and I get the feeling that, for some at least, it is more than a simple analogy. There is a genuine belief that a human being is nothing more than a biological computer (the mind/brain analogy to software/hardware, the end-of-life analogy of a computer shutting off, etc). Say it isn't so.

Except we can't be turned back on...

No. We are capable of resolving problems that computers will never resolve (Non terminating algorithms). We may be something that we can model, but not with a digital deterministic computer.

It *is* so.

To me, the brain is an organic machine, that receives and processes all that we hear, see, feel, etc, and organises it into experiences which it uses as the basis upon which to determine what our actions should be in any given circumstances. Hence the absence of free will.

We get lots of bugs that's for sure...but I certainly don't crash as often as my pc.
*kicks it for crashing for the umpteenth time today*

It *is* so.

To me, the brain is an organic machine, that receives and processes all that we hear, see, feel, etc, and organises it into experiences which it uses as the basis upon which to determine what our actions should be in any given circumstances. Hence the absence of free will.

So who is this "me" you refer to then?

Computers follow a certain code and can't really change from that. Humans sorta of do, we follow our instinct which is a pre-programmed code of sorts, but we also learn from our experiences. Computers can do that as well, not very well but they can learn (development of AI, etc...). No people aren't computers....yet. Maybe in 150 years when we insert chips into the brains of fetus' and regular humans become obsolete and life with out electronci devices can't even be considered then we'll be computers. but right now were still human, even if we can't act like it.

There have many references lately to the human being as a computer, and I get the feeling that, for some at least, it is more than a simple analogy. There is a genuine belief that a human being is nothing more than a biological computer (the mind/brain analogy to software/hardware, the end-of-life analogy of a computer shutting off, etc). Say it isn't so.
i think it's the other way 'round: computers are just our attempts at creating inorganic human brains. we design them to emulate our system of thought and to produce information that our brains find useful. because their materials and construction is different they will not precisely model a human mind, but they are based on the same general idea and schema. it's a bit like how a tent, a hut, and a condo are all domiciles, yet they don't necessarily share all the same features, advantages, disadvantages, materials, etc.

I was a computer science major for a while, and I know a little bit about AI. Here's what I have found: computers are really fast, but really stupid. Unless you guide it like a 2-year-old, it doesn't know wha to do. Quite frankly, there is one aspect of humanity that can't be done with a computer: creativity. In the end, we have to conclude that people are more than the sum of their parts due to this single characteristic. Humans cannot be seen as simply computers, and computers will never turn into humans.

Although I can understand the analogy, it's not correct strictly speaking. i guess the biggest difference between humans and computers is that we are not "programmed" in the same sense that a computer is. Computers have yet to create and program other computers.

So who is this "me" you refer to then?

Having no free will does not mean having no consciousness of self. I think no one would dispute that each of us is conscious of his- or herself. I think I am conscious of myself, therefore I necessarily am. :D Simply, the "me" we are conscious of is not a "me" that has free will. The brain is an organic machine that is conscious (to some limited degree, at least) of its own processes.

Unless they are programmed to. I think computers have yet to program another computer based on its wants and thoughts. Human beings are individuals. We will all act a little differently in a particular situation. Computers will all act according to their program. The same.

There have many references lately to the human being as a computer, and I get the feeling that, for some at least, it is more than a simple analogy. There is a genuine belief that a human being is nothing more than a biological computer (the mind/brain analogy to software/hardware, the end-of-life analogy of a computer shutting off, etc). Say it isn't so.
Yeah, we're very complex computers. Why does that bother you?

Unless they are programmed to. I think computers have yet to program another computer based on its wants and thoughts. Human beings are individuals. We will all act a little differently in a particular situation. Computers will all act according to their program. The same.
Artificial computers are fairly primitive. We've only been building them for a short time. Evolution has been working on biological computers for billions of years.

Input.

*processing*

Output.

Well I am a computer tech by trade. The way I see it, computers are based on the creator. Man functions in certain, logical ways, either by Creation as I believe or evolution. Either way, we are based around several principals. A central thought center (the brain), Power supply (food intake) and circulation (lungs). Computers likewise need to follow certain logical steps in order to work. It would only be natural that we the designers would base aurguably the most complex system to date on something equally complex, ourselves

No, Earth is a computer we're just software running on it.... granted software that has been corrupted by a bunch of phone sanitarians and hairdressers.

There have many references lately to the human being as a computer, and I get the feeling that, for some at least, it is more than a simple analogy. There is a genuine belief that a human being is nothing more than a biological computer (the mind/brain analogy to software/hardware, the end-of-life analogy of a computer shutting off, etc). Say it isn't so.
The answer to your question depends on whether or not you believe there is a spiritual, or non-physical component to reality, and human consciousness in particular. "All systems subject to the laws of physics can be simulated by algorithms. Hence any system which cannot in principle be simulated by an algorithm must have a non-physical component." We have not yet been able to prove one way or another that there is any activity in the human consciousness that is not subject to the laws of physics. Therefore, we have no way to prove one way or another whether the human mind is a biological computer or not.

Also, when you say "nothing more than a biological computer", I think you're discounting what a remarkable thing the human brain is! I wish we had the computing power and capability to simulate all the algorithms that occur in a brain the size of a fruit fly's! The human brain is a truly awesome thing, and we would be fools to think that it needs some non-physical component to do the truly wonderful things it does.

No, Earth is a computer we're just software running on it.... granted software that has been corrupted by a bunch of phone sanitarians and hairdressers.
People who clean telephones?

An exception 0E has occured...
An exception 0E has occured...
An exception 0E has occured...

Uh, yes, maybe we are all compABORT, RETRY OR FAIL?

Uh... fail.

Thank you for choosing Naturosoft products.

(Hey, Nature has a monopoly on nearly everything, right?)

An exception 0E has occured...
An exception 0E has occured...
An exception 0E has occured...

Uh, yes, maybe we are all compABORT, RETRY OR FAIL?

Uh... fail.

Thank you for choosing Naturosoft products.

(Hey, Nature has a monopoly on nearly everything, right?)
Naturosoft running on wetware :p

Yeah, we're very complex computers. Why does that bother you?
It bothers me that people think they are so dumb. They don't give themselves enough credit.

It bothers me that people think they are so dumb. They don't give themselves enough credit.
"Complex biological computer" doesn not mean dumb. On the contrary, we're the best computers around so far.

Having no free will does not mean having no consciousness of self. I think no one would dispute that each of us is conscious of his- or herself. I think I am conscious of myself, therefore I necessarily am. :D Simply, the "me" we are conscious of is not a "me" that has free will. The brain is an organic machine that is conscious (to some limited degree, at least) of its own processes.
If you have an "I" and can use it in a sentence, you are necessarily conscious. If there is no will, there is nothing for the consciousness to do, so it would just sit there, like a bump on a log, doing nothing. "Will" is the consciousness directing itself. "Self" is the subjective perspective on this process.

"Free" will is will, unless you are involved in a discussion about God having destined each of us for some particular fate. The two mean the same: if will is not free, nor directed by another consciousness (God), then it is not will.

We are 'computers'. Even creativity is a logical proces, just a very 'complex' one and i suppose it usually involves 'background processes'. example: a very small input, for example reading the word 'key' in a large text about something, causes some things to be loaded from the memory to be processed in the background (without you knowing it), where it is related to lots of other things loaded in a similar way and this backgroundproces might then interfer with the 'active' proces (what you know you are doing) and cause you to think things without even knowing where they came from, in other words: creativity.

You might 'step down' on the ladder and take a 'lower' species. I'll take an ant. I suppose it's easier to picture a robot controlled by an antsimulator to act like an ant. You can then 'move up the ladder' and see that no fundamental changes occur, only the complexity of the computer increases (a lot i suppose).

I've made this comparison a few times around here, and I'm guessing my most recent mention of it (in the thread discussing whether or not we have a "soul") is what spurred this topic...

I'd like to clarify it a bit, though...

It's not meant as literally as some of you seem to have taken it...

The analogy is basically that our minds work in similar ways to computers (actually, like Bottle and others have mentioned, it's the computers that are designed to work like us, but regardless of which inspired what, the comparison can run both ways)...

They are complex data processing units that accept input, interpret it based on pre-programmed rules, flavored by a handful of learned rules (which is one aspect that sets us above current computing technology), and generate output based on the findings...

But beyond that, you can even draw parallels to computer hardware... Our minds have permanent storage memory, operating memory (RAM), power supplies, data input ports, output mechanisms, etc...

And in a sense, our thoughts also are grouped in a sort of "OS > secondary programs" set up... We have an overall OS, and numerous, specialized "applications" that can be called up at will...

But don't get me wrong... Our artificial computers are nothing compared to our organic computers... Our brains are MUCH more complex than the home PC (or even the most powerful Super Computer out there)... And our minds can do things our computers can only imagine (even though they can't! haha! err... heh...)

However, fundamentally, they share MANY facets (and again, the correlations are there because our computers are based on our minds)...

But regardless of all of this, my main comparison here is to say that our minds are nothing more than a computer-like mechanism that uses electrochemical impulses to convey and manipulate data and to receive and send data to a machine (our body)... The main ramification of this is that this "computer" relies on the power it receives from the machine it controls, and thus, will cease to operate once the body ceases to operate... Death = Permanent Shut Down...

The religious impact of this is that it completely obliterates the "soul"... It takes away what people think is "special" about us, and says that we are rather mundane, and entirely natural (rather than supernatural)... In a sense, this is correct, actually... However, this view is vastly discounting just how amazingly powerful the human computer really is...

If anything, the fact that something so beautiful and complex can arise from nothing but basic chemistry is a sort of "miracle" in itself... There's no need to add in any "soul" to make us special...

But don't get me wrong... Our artificial computers are nothing compared to our organic computers... Our brains are MUCH more complex than the home PC (or even the most powerful Super Computer out there)... And our minds can do things our computers can only imagine (even though they can't! haha! err... heh...)

However, fundamentally, they share MANY facets (and again, the correlations are there because our computers are based on our minds)...
Yes, that's it: they are two distinctly different things, and I was much comforted by the ideas Bottle expressed. Why must the brain/mind be "an organic computer" (something that was, as was pointed out, made to emulate us, not us it)? It's like creating a transporter transit network (as a futuristic example) that emulates our nervous system --let's call it "nervecell travel" --and then turning it around to claim that our nervous system is the nervecell travel of our bodies. Here's the crux of what really bothers me: it makes a symbol of the thing and relates it back to us, and this relation carries with it depersonalizing connotations. The nature of a symbol is such that we draw meaning from it, not that it impose any meaning on us. If it does, it has gone beyond being a simple symbol.

I was a computer science major for a while, and I know a little bit about AI. Here's what I have found: computers are really fast, but really stupid. Unless you guide it like a 2-year-old, it doesn't know wha to do. Quite frankly, there is one aspect of humanity that can't be done with a computer: creativity. In the end, we have to conclude that people are more than the sum of their parts due to this single characteristic. Humans cannot be seen as simply computers, and computers will never turn into humans.
Actually, I've sometimes wondered abut something:

Suppose you had a complex computer that could evaluate almost anything according to logical, deterministic algorithms. Now suppose that the computer was directed to create a randomly-generated statement every so often and evaluate that random statement. Of course, being random, most of these statements are going to evaluate to something that's total nonsense or even outright harmful and be dismissed (for example "Attach computer to sky with superglue" or "Bombard cow with kitchen sink"). Occassionally, however, you'll come up with something that makes sense and isn't harmful (for example "Draw butterfly on cloud with lasers" results in a laserlight show).

Might this approximate creativity?

The religious impact of this is that it completely obliterates the "soul"... It takes away what people think is "special" about us, and says that we are rather mundane, and entirely natural (rather than supernatural)... In a sense, this is correct, actually... However, this view is vastly discounting just how amazingly powerful the human computer really is...

If anything, the fact that something so beautiful and complex can arise from nothing but basic chemistry is a sort of "miracle" in itself... There's no need to add in any "soul" to make us special...
The complexity of the human brain is a wonderful thing in-and-of-itself (I agree with you on that point), but it does not necessarily disprove the existence of a soul. Regardless of whether or not there are souls or whether or not there is a God, we have been surprised by creation at every turn in history and creation has been proven to be far deeper, far vaster, and far more complex than we give it credit for. Cells, microorganisms, the genetic code, electromagnetism, light that we can't see, sounds that we can't hear, molecules, atoms, subatomic particles, the fact that light has a finite speed, the fact that the lights in the night sky are distant stars like our own sun.... To date, noone who was ever born (except maybe Jesus Christ, but he didn't come here to talk about quarks) has been able to reliably say about creation or anything in it "This is it, this is what is and there is nothing more; everything that is possible is based upon this."

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
Founder and Delegate of The Realm of Ambrosia

"Complex biological computer" doesn not mean dumb. On the contrary, we're the best computers around so far.
Let's try a little experiment. Relax, clear your mind, and then tell me what sort of image is summoned up by this phrase: "a mechanical brain."

Kraftwerk.

No, seriously, an organic-esque brain with metal casing, wires, and gears. Don't ask why.

No, seriously, an organic-esque brain with metal casing, wires, and gears. Don't ask why.
But I will ask why, that's exactly what I'll do. Why does the phrase summon up a 1950's B-movie image of a large box with gears, switches, dials and flashing lights? Why is "complex biological computer" applied to a human such a favourable phrase, and "mechanical brain" applied to a machine laughable?

We are VERY similar to computers, in the way that we process information gathered, analyze it, send it through processes, store it, and then feed it back out.

But then again, we are VERY different.

The Human brain contains a HUGE number of neurons, and each one individually is like a computer. It accepts information, and redirects it; sending it to other neurons, not sending information, etc. The result of all these neurons in a combined network creates a consciousness. The computers we have created so far lack the intricate design necessary for consciousness.

Computers can only sense two variables: 1 or 0 (aka, binary code). But the human brain, via the neurons and chemical basis of information, uses gradients, leaving countless variables. This makes us VASTLY superior to computer processing, and is another reason that we've developed consciousness and can think on higher planes than computers.

Are we computers? yes, but not the ones you're thinking of. We have a long way to go before we create anything near the complexity of the human brain.

As for Free Will, it sort of exists... but it's dampened by chemical stimuli. There is such a thing as pure consciousness, but we do not have it (hormones and chemicals help determine a lot of our actions). Therefore, we are capable of free will, but it's difficult to attain. Perhaps if one separated their brain from all unnecessary chemical stimuli...

-Neo Nuria

That makes my brain think...is a brain a WWW? Each neuron a pc linked by phonelines, storing tons of information, and tons of useless stuff too.

(bump)

Humpf... Well... I am certainly NOT from IBM! :mad:

He He He... puts a new meaning to "peer to peer interfacing"

If brains are computers, then is hypnosis hacking into them?