Brain vs. Computer

[ajaysinghgoshiyal]

Daniel Dennett (b. 1942), American philosopher and cognitive scientist, writes that qualia is "an unfamiliar term for something that could not be more familiar to each of us: the ways things seem to us."

 

Metaphysical identity holds of necessity.

If something is possibly false, it is not necessary.

It is conceivable that qualia could have a different relationship to physical brain-states.

If it is conceivable, then it is possible.

Since it is possible for qualia to have a different relationship with physical brain-states, they cannot be identical to brain states (by 1).

Therefore, qualia are non-physical.

 

When looked at philosophically, qualia become a tipping point between physicality and the metaphysical, which polarizes the discussion, as we've seen above, into "Do they or do they not exist?" and "Are they physical or beyond the physical?" However, from a strictly neurological perspective, they can both exist, and be very important to the organism's survival, and be the result of strict neuronal oscillation, and still not rule out the metaphysical. A good example of this pro/con blending is in Rodolfo Llinás's I of the Vortex (MIT Press, 2002, pp. 202207). Llinás argues that qualia are ancient and necessary for an organism's survival and a product of neuronal oscillation. Llinás gives the evidence of anesthesia of the brain and subsequent stimulation of limbs to demonstrate that qualia can be "turned off" with changing only the variable of neuronal oscillation (local brain electrical activity), while all other connections remain intact, arguing strongly for an oscillatoryelectrical origin of qualia, or important aspects of them. Others criticize this position by arguing that qualia are not necessary at all for organisms' survival, since they can do it perfectly without it.

 

 

all copy pasted from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

Edited October 1, 2013 by imatfaal
copy pasta plagiarism infringement

[EdEarl]

 

It is conceivable that qualia could have a different relationship to physical brain-states.

Different relationship to physical brain-states than what? This quote seems to be an incomplete thought, that I do not understand.

[ajaysinghgoshiyal]

I left out some parts from my study in wiki because i could not believe them. But if you are interested i will gladly post it for discussion. Its something about dualism. The mind//body as a seperate entity and all that.

[Moontanman]

I left out some parts from my study in wiki because i could not believe them. But if you are interested i will gladly post it for discussion. Its something about dualism. The mind//body as a seperate entity and all that.

 

 

The mind is the product of the brain, easy to show this is true, but the experiment is a bit permanent...

[ajaysinghgoshiyal]

I gathered from rereading the text that they were saying that the qualia cannot be accounted for by a physical brain state on any machine as of now. It suffices to say that the mind is possibly a distinct entity from the brain that produces it and that each can interact in both directions. But it sounds lunatic to me personally speaking. How are they saying these kind of things will require more research on my part before i throw in the towel already.

 

 

Forgetting qualia just for a minute! How does matter (tangible brain) produce mind (intangible)???

Edited September 30, 2013 by ajaysinghgoshiyal

[Moontanman]

I gathered from rereading the text that they were saying that the qualia cannot be accounted for by a physical brain state on any machine as of now. It suffices to say that the mind is possibly a distinct entity from the brain that produces it and that each can interact in both directions. But it sounds lunatic to me personally speaking. How are they saying these kind of things will require more research on my part before i throw in the towel already.

 

 

Forgetting qualia just for a minute! How does matter (brain) produce mind???

 

The fact that brain injury can change who you are or erase you completely is suggestive that the brain is the source of the mind...

[ajaysinghgoshiyal]

The brain is indeed the source of the mind. But guess how. I have no idea. Can anyone provide some useful theories or do none exist.

[Moontanman]

The brain is indeed the source of the mind. But guess how. I have no idea. Can anyone provide some useful theories or do none exist.

 

 

I'm not sure what you are asking, but the brain is an electrochemical computer, the mind is an emergent property of the brain..

[ajaysinghgoshiyal]

I knew that already. What i was really asking is that how can something tangible/brain produce something intangible/mind. Its like saying that a kidney or liver can think! But how! Or going one step even further,, how exactly is all this "consciousness or qualia" generated from nothing but simple tissue?

Edited September 30, 2013 by ajaysinghgoshiyal

[Moontanman]

I knew that already. What i was really asking is that how can something tangible/brain produce something intangible/mind. Its like saying that a kidney or liver can think! But how! Or going one step even further,, how exactly is all this "consciousness or qualia" generated from nothing but simple tissue?

 

 

A kidney or liver is not a computer...

[ajaysinghgoshiyal]

Neither is the brain a computer. A computer is made of totally different parts than a brain is. To my knowledge one is human and one is not. One can think and one cannot. A computer may be electrical but try adding chemicals to it and see what happens then! You will get a full parts list instantly!

Edited September 30, 2013 by ajaysinghgoshiyal

[Moontanman]

Neither is the brain a computer. A computer is made of totally different parts than a brain is. To my knowledge one is human and one is not. One can think and one cannot. A computer may be electrical but try adding chemicals to it and see what happens then! You will get a full parts list instantly!

 

 

You realize what you just claimed is not supported by anything other than your claim?

[ajaysinghgoshiyal]

I didnt get your point. Please kindly elaborate. I am claiming the brain is NOT A computer. Prove my claim as wrong. Fundamentally speaking,, what is the difference between an axon running between two neurons and a wire running between two screws? Can those screws and wires make a brain which might be nothing short of a robot? Enable the computer to think? Enable it to touch or even feel?

Edited September 30, 2013 by ajaysinghgoshiyal

[Moontanman]

I didnt get your point. Please kindly elaborate. I am claiming the brain is NOT A computer. Prove my claim as wrong.

 

 

http://padante.com/similarities-between-human-brain-and-computer/

[ajaysinghgoshiyal]

Thanks. It doesnt say anywhere that the computer can think or feel. The similiarities appear to end there. The day a computer becomes intelligent is a permanent experiment and a woo word known as science fiction.

Edited September 30, 2013 by ajaysinghgoshiyal

[EdEarl]

 

 

http://padante.com/similarities-between-human-brain-and-computer/

In addition, I'd like to add that computers are now doing things that people use their brains to do, such as facial recognition, voice recognition, driving a car, playing chess, playing Jeopardy, etc.

[ajaysinghgoshiyal]

They are advanced. But they can not think or feel like us. We are not automated robots. We have free will and all that they dont.

 

 

http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/ComputersCantThink.txt

Edited September 30, 2013 by ajaysinghgoshiyal

[Moontanman]

Thanks. It doesnt say anywhere that the computer can think or feel. The similiarities appear to end there. The day a computer becomes intelligent is a permanent experiment and a woo word known as science fiction.

 

 

Your incredulity is not relevant to the problem...

They are advanced. But they can not think or feel like us. We are not automated robots. We have free will and all that they dont.

 

 

http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/ComputersCantThink.txt

 

 

No computer is any where near as complex as a human mind... yet... that does not negate the fact the differences are simply matters of degree...

[ajaysinghgoshiyal]

This is equally incredulous. The differences are so very great. The day a computer can think or feel is not a matter of degree. It would remove the fiction from science fiction. Is anyone else going to contribute to this discussion? Or are we the only two left?

Edited September 30, 2013 by ajaysinghgoshiyal

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

At the request of the OP, the title has been changed from "About Qualia" to "Brain vs Computer". If this is a problem, or significantly changes your responses, please PM me or another staff member.

[Moontanman]

This is equally incredulous. The differences are so very great. The day a computer can think or feel is not a matter of degree. It would remove the fiction from science fiction. Is anyone else going to contribute to this discussion? Or are we the only two left?

 

 

The differences between an elephant and a mouse are quite large but both are mammals, computers can indeed mimic human responses so well it is possible to fool real people into thinking they are real people...

[Mr Monkeybat]

Unless its a quantum computer any piece of information processing hardware can be emulated on a sufficiently powerful Turing machine.

[ajaysinghgoshiyal]

The Turing test is a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human. In the original illustrative example, a human judge engages in natural language conversations with a human and a machine designed to generate performance indistinguishable from that of a human being. All participants are separated from one another. If the judge cannot reliably tell the machine from the human, the machine is said to have passed the test. The test DOES NOT check the ability to give the correct answer to questions; it checks how closely the answer resembles typical human answers. The conversation IS LIMITED to a text-only channel such as a computer keyboard and screen so that the result is not dependent on the machine's ability to render words into audio.[2]

 

Here Descartes notes that automata are capable of responding to human interactions but argues that such automata can not respond appropriately to things said in their presence in the way that any human can. Descartes therefore prefigures the Turing Test by identifying the insufficiency of appropriate linguistic response as that which separates the human from the automaton.

 

In 1936, philosopher Alfred Ayer considered the standard philosophical question of other minds: how do we know that other people have the same conscious experiences that we do? In his book, Language, Truth and Logic, Ayer suggested a protocol to distinguish between a conscious man and an unconscious machine: "The only ground I can have for asserting that an object which appears to be conscious is NOT really a conscious being, but only a DUMMY or a machine, is that it fails to satisfy one of the empirical tests by which the presence or absence of consciousness is determined."[11]

 

With these techniques, Weizenbaum's program was able to fool some people into believing that they were talking to a real person, with some subjects being "very hard to convince that ELIZA [...] is not human."[26] Thus, ELIZA is claimed by some to be one of the programs (perhaps the first) able to pass the Turing Test,[26][27] even though this view is HIGHLY CONTENTIOUS (see below).

 

John Searle's 1980 paper Minds, Brains, and Programs proposed the "Chinese room" thought experiment and argued that the Turing test could NOT be used to determine if a machine can think. Searle noted that software (such as ELIZA) could pass the Turing Test simply ----by manipulating---- symbols of which they had no understanding. Without understanding, they could not be described as "thinking" in the same sense people do. Therefore, Searle concludes, the Turing Test cannot prove that a machine can think.[33] Searle's argument has been widely criticized,[34] but it has been endorsed as well.[35]

 

The first Loebner Prize competition in 1991 led to a renewed discussion of the viability of the Turing Test and the value of pursuing it, in both the popular press[39] and the academia.[40] The first contest was won by a -----mindless program---- with no identifiable intelligence that managed to fool naive interrogators into making the wrong identification. This highlighted several of the shortcomings of the Turing Test (discussed below): The winner won, at least in part, because it was able to "imitate human typing errors";[39] the unsophisticated interrogators were ----easily fooled----;[40] and some researchers in AI have been led to feel that the test is merely a distraction from more fruitful research.[41]

 

The Loebner Prize tests conversational intelligence; winners are typically chatterbot programs, or Artificial Conversational Entities (ACE)s. Early Loebner Prize rules restricted conversations: Each entry and hidden-human conversed on a single topic, thus the interrogators were restricted to one line of questioning per entity interaction. The restricted conversation rule was lifted for the 1995 Loebner Prize. Interaction duration between judge and entity has varied in Loebner Prizes. In Loebner 2003, at the University of Surrey, each interrogator was allowed five minutes to interact with an entity, machine or hidden-human. Between 2004 and 2007, the interaction time allowed in Loebner Prizes was more than twenty minutes. In 2008, the interrogation duration allowed was five minutes per pair, because the organiser, Kevin Warwick, and coordinator, Huma Shah, consider this to be the duration for any test, as Turing stated in his 1950 paper: " ... making the right identification after five minutes of questioning".[43] They felt Loebner's longer test, implemented in Loebner Prizes 2006 and 2007, was inappropriate for the state of artificial conversation technology.[44] It is ironic that the 2008 winning entry, Elbot from Artificial Solutions, does not mimic a human; its personality is that of A ROBOT, yet Elbot deceived three human judges that it was the human during human-parallel comparisons.[45]

 

 

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test

Please note that the capital letters are used to highlight relevant sections of the text since i cannot do this on my iphone only for now.

 

Please also see the use of several dashes to highlight further relevant parts of the text.

[Villain]

 

 

The mind is the product of the brain, easy to show this is true, but the experiment is a bit permanent...

 

There is absolutely no evidence that the mind is a product of the brain. Killing someone or inflicting brain damage is not evidence since the mind is subjective and your objective observation of someone else's 'mind' does not equal evidence.

[ydoaPs]

If it is conceivable, then it is possible.

It's really not. See, people can easily conceive of inconsistent systems. That means they can conceive of that which is logically impossible. All other modalities are built on logical possibility. Nothing which is logically impossible is metaphysically possible.

They are advanced. But they can not think or feel like us. We are not automated robots. We have free will and all that they dont.[/url]

We do? What do you mean by "free will"? Dollars to donuts, your idea of free will is metaphysically confused at best and logically impossible at worst. How does it exclude nonorganic things from having free will in principle? After all, your OP claims that anything which is conceivable is possible. We can conceive of robots with free will. Aren't you, then, committed to allowing the possibility of robots with free will? Hint: the answer is 'yes'.