User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 105

  1. #21
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dissonance View Post
    yeah, that's basically my claim. the brain is a form of computer, just with different hardware and software, and designed to do different things.

    and induction, emotion, consciousness, etc. are really just complex routines that we could replicate if we knew the code.
    Well let's not get into coding just yet -- coding involves compiling, as I'm positive you're aware, which involves using software to convert keyboard input, into an array of different combinations of electrical impulses (a lot like the brain...). It's amazingly complicated given all the transistors and resistors in the integrated circuits. We'd need a similar device - a translator, if you will - if we were to interface directly with the brain, and give it commands without sensory input.

    Dude evan I actually wrote about this in my blog - I'll link it in a second; The senses of a computer would be the same as the keyboard or the disk drives, or any USB device, though with those, the analogy gets far more complex -- as with an iPod the computer writes data onto it. I guess this would be akin to doing homework or talking to a friend; outputting data that is.

    The CD itself or the user of the computer typing on the keyboard would take the place of sensory stimuli.

    I also had a number of talks with my friend Night on the topic. I'll clear it with him first, and see if he wouldn't mind my copying and pasting his sentiments. He had a lot of good stuff to say.

    Edit: Computer post
    we fukin won boys

  2. #22
    will make your day Carebear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    I agree with this guy I think (if I understood him correctly, that article was a mean bugger): Is the Brain a Digital Computer?

    VI. Summary of the Argument.

    This brief argument has a simple logical structure and I will lay it out:

    1. On the standard textbook definition, computation is defined syntactically in terms of symbol manipulation.

    2. But syntax and symbols are not defined in terms of physics. Though symbol tokens are always physical tokens, "symbol" and "same symbol" are not defined in terms of physical features. Syntax, in short, is not intrinsic to physics.

    3. This has the consequence that computation is not discovered in the physics, it is assigned to it. Certain physical phenomena are assigned or used or programmed or interpreted syntactically. Syntax and symbols are observer relative.

    4. It follows that you could not discover that the brain or anything else was intrinsically a digital computer, although you could assign a computational interpretation to it as you could to anything else. The point is not that the claim "The brain is a digital computer" is false. Rather it does not get up to the level of falsehood. It does not have a clear sense. You will have misunderstood my account if you think that I am arguing that it is simply false that the brain is a digital computer. The question "Is the brain a digital computer?" is as ill defined as the questions "Is it an abacus?", "Is it a book?", or "Is it a set of symbols?", "Is it a set of mathematical formulae?"

    5. Some physical systems facilitate the computational use much better than others. That is why we build, program, and use them. In such cases we are the homunculus in the system interpreting the physics in both syntactical and semantic terms.

    6. But the causal explanations we then give do not cite causal properties different from the physics of the implementation and the intentionality of the homunculus.

    7. The standard, though tacit, way out of this is to commit the homunculus fallacy. The humunculus fallacy is endemic to computational models of cognition and cannot be removed by the standard recursive decomposition arguments. They are addressed to a different question.

    8. We cannot avoid the foregoing results by supposing that the brain is doing "information processing". The brain, as far as its intrinsic operations are concerned, does no information processing. It is a specific biological organ and its specific neurobiological processes cause specific forms of intentionality. In the brain, intrinsically, there are neurobiological processes and sometimes they cause consciousness. But that is the end of the story.\**
    The brain is not a computer any more than it is an abacus.
    I have arms for a fucking reaosn, so come hold me. Then we'll fuvk! Whoooooh! - GZA

  3. #23
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    fsho dusty.


  4. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Brain itself is a biological computer. But consciousness and will aren't. It's like a human being is actually a robot controlled by his will, not just biologically, like animals.

    Brain is a computer, but is no digital.

    If you read on neural networks you'll understand.
    ENTJ - LII - Intimate Five

    +++ PRAISE CHRIST +++ - don't be afraid : seek and defend the Truth with boldness.

  5. #25
    will make your day Carebear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    Yes, neural networks are an important part of it. But you won't understand. Not even the experts understand yet.

    And the brain is not just a biological computer. It can be used as one, but there's more to it. It houses consciousness, will, intent etc as well. Also, it doesn't really differ fundamentally from animal brains. Animal brains have will, intent etc. as well.
    I have arms for a fucking reaosn, so come hold me. Then we'll fuvk! Whoooooh! - GZA

  6. #26
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by machintruc View Post
    Brain itself is a biological computer. But consciousness and will aren't. It's like a human being is actually a robot controlled by his will, not just biologically, like animals.
    But what we know as 'free will' and consciousness are the product of the bio-digitizing are they not?
    Brain is a computer, but is no digital.

    If you read on neural networks you'll understand.
    Maybe you need to reread.

    14 posts and I like this guy already.
    we fukin won boys

  7. #27
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carebear View Post
    Yes, neural networks are an important part of it. But you won't understand. Not even the experts understand yet.
    True enough, but we can make inferences. It would be futile, not to mention excessive to map out every connection since it almost undoubtedly is comparable to fingerprints and the bumps on your tongue in that no two are alike.
    we fukin won boys

  8. #28
    will make your day Carebear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    True enough, but we can make inferences. It would be futile, not to mention excessive to map out every connection since it almost undoubtedly is comparable to fingerprints and the bumps on your tongue in that no two are alike.
    Absolutely! I only meant it as a comment to "If you read on neural networks you'll understand.".
    I have arms for a fucking reaosn, so come hold me. Then we'll fuvk! Whoooooh! - GZA

  9. #29
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carebear View Post
    Absolutely! I only meant it as a comment to "If you read on neural networks you'll understand.".
    Oh I know. I didn't really like that 'cause I don't think it can hurt to read up on it. Just 'cause they don't know everything doesn't mean they're completely wrong.

    However you're right, they don't know everything, and we can't make any finalizations until they (we) do.
    we fukin won boys

  10. #30
    Senior Member ThatsWhatHeSaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    The similarity between the brain and a computer seems like a basic similarity to all matter, in that everything that happens can be reduced to smaller and smaller pieces that fire bits of information. Each bit, alone, means nothing. But in some pattern, it acquires significance. Everything, I would argue, is like this. In both the mind and computers, though, the bits are aggregated in such a way that they can make calculations for some end.

    That end, and the type of calculations that are built around that end, is what makes computers and mind different. Computers aren't designed to protect their own existence; humans, and the minds that form their headquarters, are explicitly designed for that purpose. Because of that, the type of calculations (means) that each performs to reach that end is different. The mind works by assessing probabilities, by seeking danger, by heuristics, etc., like your teacher said. Computers are designed for storing, quantifying, and deconstructing/evaluating, so they rely on different calculations which tend to produce more accuracy in some situations.

    Big whoop.

Similar Threads

  1. Is the brain the source of faith?
    By JAVO in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 02-05-2009, 05:08 AM
  2. What is the craziest bit of technology you have read about in SF?
    By macjoven in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-14-2009, 08:15 PM
  3. How the Brain Learns
    By labyrinthine in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-28-2007, 07:08 AM
  4. What is the nicest thing a stranger has ever done for you?
    By ladypinkington in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 07-30-2007, 11:42 PM
  5. What is the point of the MBTI?
    By Dufresne in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-31-2007, 04:37 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO