The patterns are similar -- that's partially what we're getting atEach bit, alone, means nothing. But in some pattern, it acquires significance.
Here lies the remainder of the point. What you say here sums it up quite nicely.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.
True enough, but as I stated earlier, computers could be designed to protect themselves. We don't have that implementation for a number of reasons, the most prominent being that there's no need -- computers' greatest threat is dust and static electricity, both of which seem to attract the other.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.I disagree. I think the way those calculations are manifest are differently.Because of that, the type of calculations (means) that each performs to reach that end is different.The programming can, and is used for prediction, and learning. Computer programming is a perfect example of heuristics in a computer.The mind works by assessing probabilities, by seeking danger, by heuristics, etc., like your teacher said.So... we devised an entire system of 'thinking' never to be used by conscious people -- only to be employed by computers?Computers are designed for storing, quantifying, and deconstructing/evaluating, so they rely on different calculations which tend to produce more accuracy in some situations.
I was under the impression that we took commonly accepted logical methods and implanted them to the integrated systems.
Yeah... it's not really a big deal. Computers seem to be just an extrapolated incarnation of the logical side of the consciousness. It's quicker with immediate calculations because it can focus. There's less survival 'clutter' in the computer, so it can do our thinking for us.Big whoop.
The ends are different though. I'll give you that.
Oh... I'd also like to point out another differentiation.
I don't see computers 'using' other computers, or manipulating their users. They're functional machines, and while a brain is a functional machine, we've not to my knowledge come up with a way to train them to be persuasive, or argumentative. They don't try to convince.