Jump to content
jimmydasaint

Why are we humans and not robots?

Recommended Posts

You just confirmed what I told you. aka: "to appear in error" to a user or onlooker.

 

Regardless of what the output data consisted of, …. it was in fact 100% correct and factual as per instructed (instructions) by the computer code that you created.

What is the difference with a human if the output is functionally similar? What is the difference between a human brain making an error and a computer making an error? The error in both cases is the result of its programming. A human brain can also be considered binary: it either spikes, or it doesn't.

 

I will ask again in this thread: please use proper sentences like everybody else and cut the excessive dots and suggestive language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the difference with a human if the output is functionally similar?

 

The above appears to me to be an oxymoronic question. Iffen the outputs are functionally similar, why are you asking what the difference is?

 

What is the difference between a human brain making an error and a computer making an error?

 

Errors are like beauty, ...... they only exist in the eyes of the beholder.

 

The error in both cases is the result of its programming.

 

See above response concerning errors.

 

A human brain can also be considered binary: it either spikes, or it doesn't.

 

Iffen you have a "spikey" brain then you can consider it whatever you want to.

And there is not much about the human brain that can be considered "binary" except for the fact it has two (2) hemispheres and two (2) minds.

 

The architecture of the brain/mind has nothing whatsoever to do with a "binary" function or design.

 

 

I will ask again in this thread: please use proper sentences like everybody else and cut the excessive dots and suggestive language.

 

Now Bender, I write for the benefit of the reader, ..... thus I write for clarity, ... I write for comprehension, ...... I write for understanding, ..... I write for attention getting, etc. In other words, I write so that there is no excuse for the "constant kibitzers" to be claiming it was my fault for their uh, uh, uh ,,, problem(s). That is a lesson I learned many years ago when I was employed as a Teacher of Science.

 

Bender, read my writing, ...... and if you don't like its composition ..... then no one is forcing you to read it.

 

I am fairly sure you would "find fault" with the content/context of my posted commentary no matter what it consisted of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The above appears to me to be an oxymoronic question. Iffen the outputs are functionally similar, why are you asking what the difference is?

I'm glad we agree. My entire point is that there is no significant difference between our brain and a computer.

 

Iffen you have a "spikey" brain then you can consider it whatever you want to.

And there is not much about the human brain that can be considered "binary" except for the fact it has two (2) hemispheres and two (2) minds.

 

The architecture of the brain/mind has nothing whatsoever to do with a "binary" function or design.

binary=two states. Each neuron can be considered in one of two states: "spiking" or "not spiking".

 

Now Bender, I write for the benefit of the reader.

Excessive dots and suggestive language (HUH, DUH...) do not contribute to the readability. Perhaps it helps seeking attention, but not the kind of attention you want (still giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are not simply trolling).

About the numbers: could you at least explain what the thing with the brackets is?

Edited by Bender

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad we agree. My entire point is that there is no significant difference between our brain and a computer.

 

Of course there is, a computer can't re-wire itself, doesn't use chemicals as part of it's processes (to name but two) etc.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/brain1.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Of course there is, a computer can't re-wire itself, doesn't use chemicals as part of it's processes (to name but two) etc.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/brain1.htm

Computers don't need rewiring, because they can store data or install new programs without hardware adaptations.

 

Nevertheless, some computers can do it:

programmable logic arrays

neural network hardware

 

Details, such as which chemicals are used, do not affect the functionality discussed here. Such an argument is purely anthropocentric.

But if you want, there are also computers that use chemicals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

binary=two states. Each neuron can be considered in one of two states: "spiking" or "not spiking".

 

 

Actually, neutrons have multiple levels of riding (normally by the rate at which pulses are generated). Also, synapses have very complex signalling mechanisms between neurons involving multiple different chemicals. These can also be affected by the balance of other chemicals around (which is why drugs [in both senses of the word] work).

 

Also, neutrons get multiple inputs and "decide" what to do based on those. This is not like a simple "and" or "or" gate in a computer. It will be a much more complex function which might be decided by the relative timing and frequency of the inputs as well as the priorities given to each source.

 

I am not saying that the brain is not a computer (I see no reason to think otherwise) just that comparing it to an electronic/digital computer is far too naive.

Of course there is, a computer can't re-wire itself, doesn't use chemicals as part of it's processes (to name but two) etc.

 

 

There are computers that rewire themselves. (They are not very common because they are horribly difficult to program effectively.)

 

And there is no reason, in principle, that a computer shouldn't use chemicals in their function. (Of course, silicon is a chemical so they already do :))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The human brain/mind is a biological self-programming supercomputer. And anything and everything “new” that we “learn” today is highly dependent upon what we “learned” yesterday, and every yesterday in succession back until the day that each of us were born.

 

And each “new” thing we “learn” each day of our lives is “linked” to those things we learned yesterday, and the day before yesterday, and so on back to the day of our birth.

 

But, the fact is, for one to actually “learn” anything, ….. they must be able to “recall” the information that is stored in their brain. And the only way that is possible is via the above said “links” that connect the stored memory segments to one another.

 

The human brain contains over 11 billion neurons, capable of receiving, processing, and relaying the electrochemical pulses on which all our sensations, actions, thoughts, and emotions depend.

 

Brain neurons are linked together via synaptic “links”, …. based on the data/info that is stored in each neuron …. with the typical neuron having about 10,000 synapses. The synapses therefore constitute an exceedingly complex wiring system that surpasses by many orders of magnitude the complexity of even the most advanced supercomputers.

 

This graphic portray a dozen or so of the aforesaid 11 billion neurons and their synaptic “links”.

 

neurons_all_16_large_blackbg-reid.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are computers that rewire themselves. (They are not very common because they are horribly difficult to program effectively.)

 

 

Really? A damaged computer can re-wire its circuitry? I'm very interested, can you give me a link?

 

And there is no reason, in principle, that a computer shouldn't use chemicals in their function.

 

 

I said processes but you're right, that may be possible some day.

 

(Of course, silicon is a chemical so they already do :))

 

 

Again, processes not composition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

That isn't what I said. (Although I wouldn't be surprised if such a thing existed.)

 

In addition to the links Bender provide, there is also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconfigurable_computing

 

But my point was, in reply to Bender, there's more than one difference between a brain and a computer as things stand, semantics aside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But my point was, in reply to Bender, there's more than one difference between a brain and a computer as things stand, semantics aside.

 

 

There are differences in implementation (and complexity).

 

There is no good reason to think that the brain does anything that a computer couldn't do. Imagine a computer that simulated in detail all the neurons and biochemicals in the brain: it would reproduce the behaviour of the brain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no good reason to think that the brain does anything that a computer couldn't do.

 

Indeed, but then there is no good reason to think it's achievable, moor's law is not a physical constant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Indeed, but then there is no good reason to think it's achievable, moor's law is not a physical constant.

 

 

Well, as we already have one example implementation it clearly isn't impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Well, as we already have one example implementation it clearly isn't impossible.

 

Neither is god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Neither is god.

 

 

How is that relevant?

 

Anyway, maybe not (although that could be argued in another thread). But there is no evidence for a god. While there is evidence for brains and for computers. So I don't know what point you are trying to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

How is that relevant?

 

Anyway, maybe not (although that could be argued in another thread). But there is no evidence for a god. While there is evidence for brains and for computers. So I don't know what point you are trying to make.

 

 

There's no evidence the two will become equivalent, any more than there will be evidence for god.

They are fundamentally different ATM.

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There's no evidence the two will become equivalent, any more than there will be evidence for god.

There is no evidence the two will become equivalent either

 

 

They are equivalent. As the theory of computable functions shows.

 

And WTF has god got to do with it!? Try and talk sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

They are equivalent. As the theory of computable functions shows.

 

Sorry, for equivalent read same.

 

Edit. As in no difference.

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sorry, for equivalent read same.

 

 

Of course they are not the same. So what. Do try and make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no evidence the two will become equivalent either

 

 

Thought I had deleted that.

My entire point is that there is no significant difference between our brain and a computer.

 

 

Of course they are not the same. So what. Do try and make sense.

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My entire point is that there is no significant difference between our brain and a computer.]

 

 

It is pretty obvious that the point Bender is making is about the function not the implementation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, neutrons have multiple levels of riding (normally by the rate at which pulses are generated). Also, synapses have very complex signalling mechanisms between neurons involving multiple different chemicals. These can also be affected by the balance of other chemicals around (which is why drugs [in both senses of the word] work).

 

Also, neutrons get multiple inputs and "decide" what to do based on those. This is not like a simple "and" or "or" gate in a computer. It will be a much more complex function which might be decided by the relative timing and frequency of the inputs as well as the priorities given to each source.

 

I am not saying that the brain is not a computer (I see no reason to think otherwise) just that comparing it to an electronic/digital computer is far too naive.

Neurons use pulse frequency modulation to emulate analogue signals, and the function to decide whether to fire is a complex one, but I thought the magnitude of the spike is not varied. I could be wrong.

They are fundamentally different ATM.

The only functional difference is the level of complexity, which is something I wouldn't categorise as fundamental.

 

I've already debunked all attempts to find other functional differences, many of which with concrete examples. I encourage you to keep trying to find one, and I will keep giving examples of how I can make a computer behave in the way you thought was unique for humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only functional difference is the level of complexity, which is something I wouldn't categorise as fundamental.

 

I've already debunked all attempts to find other functional differences, many of which with concrete examples. I encourage you to keep trying to find one, and I will keep giving examples of how I can make a computer behave in the way you thought was unique for humans.

 

We're a long way from computers and brains being equivalent, but I can't deny this as a step on that path.

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
“Also, neutrons get multiple inputs and "decide" what to do based on those. This is not like a simple "and" or "or" gate in a computer. It will be a much more complex function which might be decided by the relative timing and frequency of the inputs as well as the priorities given to each source.”

 

 

“Neurons use pulse frequency modulation to emulate analogue signals, and the function to decide whether to fire is a complex one, but I thought the magnitude of the spike is not varied. I could be wrong.”

 

 

So, that must be how those brain neurons and synapses create that pseudo “live action video” that is referred to as a “dream” or ”dreaming” which we are permitted to “see” a portion of if awakened during our REM sleep period.

 

But the really mystifying question is, …… where in ell does those neurons and synapses get all them “weirdo” pictures they use to “create” one of those pseudo “live action videos”?

 

And another mystifying question is, …… what is it with this REM thingy (rapid eye movement) with our eye lids closed tight when we are “dreaming” up one of those pseudo “live action videos”?

 

Does that REM actually mean that our eye balls are actually watching the “live action” movements as they are being created in our “video” dreams?

 

Are we "seeing" actual video type graphics/pictures when we are "seeing" a dream content ...... or are we just "seeing" the transmission of information as it I being recalled from memory storage?

 

So many questions, ….. so few answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.