Is the brain a computer?

[Nocapszy]

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

 

[Carebear]

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.

 

[redacted]

fsho dusty.

 

[machintruc]

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.

 

[Carebear]

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.

 

[Nocapszy]

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.

 

[Nocapszy]

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.

 

[Carebear]

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.".

 

[Nocapszy]

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.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

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.

 

[Nocapszy]

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.

Yeah... the deeper and deeper it gets, the less and less I like the analogy -- you can basically say, computers == everything. I'm a pretty staunch 'lumper' but I think you gotta draw the line somewhere. I mean they are at least composed of different atom configurations.

Each bit, alone, means nothing. But in some pattern, it acquires significance.

The patterns are similar -- that's partially what we're getting at

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.

Here lies the remainder of the point. What you say here sums it up quite nicely.

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.

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.

Because of that, the type of calculations (means) that each performs to reach that end is different.

I disagree. I think the way those calculations are manifest are differently.

The mind works by assessing probabilities, by seeking danger, by heuristics, etc., like your teacher said.

The programming can, and is used for prediction, and learning. Computer programming is a perfect example of heuristics in a computer.

Computers are designed for storing, quantifying, and deconstructing/evaluating, so they rely on different calculations which tend to produce more accuracy in some situations.

So... we devised an entire system of 'thinking' never to be used by conscious people -- only to be employed by computers?

I was under the impression that we took commonly accepted logical methods and implanted them to the integrated systems.

Big whoop.

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.

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.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Yeah... the deeper and deeper it gets, the less and less I like the analogy -- you can basically say, computers == everything. I'm a pretty staunch 'lumper' but I think you gotta draw the line somewhere. I mean they are at least composed of different atom configurations.

True, but take one more step and all the atomic constituents are the same.

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.

Even if that was the case, they would still operate differently. Would you agree?

Natural selection operates on everything, but in different ways. In humans, the most adaptable human survives. The most adaptable human can market himself to mates, survive competition, and replicate. In robots, you would see the same thing: best funding, best marketing, best design would lead to the most popular model. But in humans, the creative force is mutation and imperfect replication. In robots, the creative force is human ingenuity. So, the question is, does the way humans design and model thinking for AI really imitate the way people think? Or does it only model the way we think we think? I submit that they're very different things. Thinking about something is not the same thing as the thing itself.

I disagree. I think the way those calculations are manifest are differently. The programming can, and is used for prediction, and learning. Computer programming is a perfect example of heuristics in a computer. So... we devised an entire system of 'thinking' never to be used by conscious people -- only to be employed by computers?

Same reply as above.

 

[redacted]

just realized this drunkenly:

i guess my original question should have been "is the brain fundamentally different from a computer", not is the brain is literally a computer...since "computer" is defined as a specific type of processing machine.

 

[redacted]

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.

...

Big whoop.

i essentially said that in my first post -- that everything is basically a computer.

i dunno, i thought more people would come along and disagree

i mean, at some level, things are running deterministically (i know someone's gonna bring up quantum mechanics, blah...). it's not like some atom can just choose to not follow the laws of physics. there's a physical state your brain is in at each specific moment in time, determined by the positions of atoms and their charges, etc. each of those atoms follows the physical law (some giant function, if you will), and the next position and charge of the atom is the output of the function. so everything is a giant computer! the whole universe, even.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

i essentially said that in my first post -- that everything is basically a computer.

Yeah, but what makes things unique is the way the computer pieces assemble themselves.

i dunno, i thought more people would come along and disagree

I think I both agreed and disagreed. It's just a matter of how much you "zoom in." On high magnification, everything looks the same. But when you zoom out, everything looks different. To a degree, even a computer and apple are the same. They're just different iterations of the same basic formula. But there's a lot of variance there, too. Half empty or half full? It's not an either/or thing. It just depends on what you focus on. The only wrong answer is to say "I'm right."

 

[redacted]

Yeah, but what makes things unique is the way the computer pieces assemble themselves.



I think I both agreed and disagreed. It's just a matter of how much you "zoom in." On high magnification, everything looks the same. But when you zoom out, everything looks different. To a degree, even a computer and apple are the same. They're just different iterations of the same basic formula. But there's a lot of variance there, too. Half empty or half full? It's not an either/or thing. It just depends on what you focus on. The only wrong answer is to say "I'm right."

yeah yeah, everything is the same at a low enough level. but then why talk about anything at all?

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

yeah yeah, everything is the same at a low enough level. but then why talk about anything at all?

It's your OP!


Like I said, the way matter clumps together is interesting. It's not TOTALLY DIFFERENT. It's not TOTALLY THE SAME. It's ...cool.

 

[redacted]

It's your OP!


Like I said, the way matter clumps together is interesting. It's not TOTALLY DIFFERENT. It's not TOTALLY THE SAME. It's ...cool.

meh. all the philosophy discussions i've had recently end like this.

boo. i'm drunk and argumentative right now. i guess i'll go to sleep :steam:

 

[Night]

i dunno, i thought more people would come along and disagree

I disagreed.

 

[ygolo]

Ok. There are a lot of things to consider. Although, on the whole I agree that the brain is "not a digital computer" thrust of most of the thread (sorry), we are asked to play devil's advocate, so her goes....

Church-Turing thesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In computability theory the Church–Turing thesis (also known as Church's thesis, Church's conjecture and Turing's thesis) is a combined hypothesis about the nature of effectively calculable (computable) functions by recursion (Church's Thesis), by mechanical device equivalent to a Turing machine (Turing's Thesis) or by use of Church's λ-calculus:

Church's Thesis: "Every effectively calculable function (effectively decidable predicate) is general[1] recursive" (Kleene 1952:300)

Turing's Thesis: "Turing's thesis that every function which would naturally be regarded as computable is computable under his definition, i.e. by one of his machines, is equivalent to Church's thesis by Theorem XXX." (Kleene 1952:376)

Now if we interpret that to an extreme, that would mean that it is conceivable that we can make a computer that can "simulate" the human brain (even if it is an analog computing device).

EDIT: Read more of the thread, and this ground has been covered.

Still, we are increasingly having computers take over more tasks that human beings used to do.

Computers are already more powerful and faster than the human brain in many respects.

We already have people who fail the Turing test, while programs pass it.