condition — Hermeticus

And does the brain not direct the flow of information?

The brain only directs the body. And the external world and body direct the brain. The information just flows, like a lightning flows to Earth. No program involved. The fact that there are pulsed potential flowing ( very differently as in computers) can of course be compared with the zeros and ones in computers. Coincidentally in the digital computers and in the brain there are pulsed signals to be seen. Thats why the comparison is made. It turns out that working with ones and zeros (which are defined for computers much more stricktly than in brains; computer ones and zeros are abstractions of those occuring in the brain) is a good way to represent or simulate physical events. In a computer the 1s and0s are computed. That is a orogram is let loose on them to compute the next state of them. In a brain thats not happening. The information (ths brains potential spikes) are freely flowing in the neuronal medium, with no program computing their new state. The information just follows paths of least resistance. Just like real physical processes flow. N
Because of the huge number of connections a truly cosmic number of paths can be followed (a one with a billion zeros behind it!). Thereby facilitating the possibility to analogue represent all physical processes in the universe.

It depends how you view a machine. — Prishon

Exactly.

But that's the point, how one views a machine. We project it into nature. It doesn't follow that our projections are correct. More often than not, they're incorrect, so far as the nature of the world (including the brain as part of the world) is concerned.

machine — Manuel

What is the correct view on the human machine?

Douglas R. Hofstadter sees the brain as a computer. — Prishon

Good for him! :smile:
First of all, computers work on a digital basis. The brain, on the other hand, is neither analog nor digital. It works using signal processing. It receives and transmits signals.

The computer consists of digital circuits, which are used to create combinational logic and perform functions based on boolean logic. Does anything of this remind of the brain? :smile:

Sorry, but the comparison is totally unsuccessful. :sad:

works — Alkis Piskas

Thats my idea too. Mister Hofstadter is a computer nerd himself. Thats why he looks in a rather biased way. Everywhere where signals are traveling he sees a digital framework. :smile:

Which is not to say that some analogue to outside processes can be found. I once saw the squares of a chess board litteraly light up on neural structures. There are almost infinite patterns to be made on the neural network.

Which is not to say that some analogue to outside processes can be found — Prishon

Certainly.

I once saw the squares of a chess board litteraly light up on neural structures. There are almost infinite patterns to be made on the neural network. — Prishon

Interesting! Neural networking is also a hot subject in artificial intelligence!
As for chess, although computers (chess programs) can beat good chess players --IBM's Deep Blue chess-playing computer has even won the world champion Garry Kasparov about 30 years ago!-- lack an important thing the human brain (actually, "mind") has: imagination!

Do my senses communicate me "00100100" or "10101010"? — Hermeticus

Cute picture. So, your digital picture shows 101010101010?
Or does it show 110011001100110011001100?
Or is it 111000111000111000111000111000111000?

Or are you making unwarranted assumptions?

champion — Alkis Piskas

"important thing the human brain (actually, "mind") has: imagination!"

That is very true (not true but very true, whatever I mean by that...). A computer like good old deepblue cant envision moves or experience smoke blown in his eyes! :smile:

computers — Alkis Piskas

I think computers own their AI mainly on speed. The neuron firings in the brain cant compete with the computerclocktime. Nevertheless the processes are much more complicated.

My point again: It's all just a metaphor anyway. A brain is a brain. A computer is a computer. — Hermeticus

Exactly.

I find the "brain as computer" metaphor as useful as everyone else. But a metaphor is "a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.

imagination! — Alkis Piskas

Indeed. Computers are the very model of unimaginative idiot savants.

Another huge thing the partisans of "brain as computer" do not account for is that the brain is flesh. Animals are embodied, and the body is subject to all sorts of gross and subtle influences of which silicon circuits know nothing. Cool, fresh air and bright sunshine in the morning can make oe eel glad to be alive. A beer or three can smooth out the rough edges of reality for a while. The prospect of great sex can organize one's whole day. All that and much more because we are flesh. Computers have no bodies. Brains are always part of a body -- even in the case of C. elegans, where the 'brain" is composed of 302 neurons.

I find the "brain as computer" metaphor as useful as everyone else. — Bitter Crank

I often like to remind people that before "computer" was a type of machine you bought with a keyboard and monitor, it was a job title.

Can we see the human eye as a video camera? the leg as a kickstand? the skull as a hat rack?

Tools such as the computer can at best mimic the activity of the human body, but are never accurate representations of it. The question should be the other way about: is the computer a brain? The answer is always no.

Some philosophers of mind have argued that consciousness is a form of user illusion. — Wikipedia

That could very well be. If it is the unconscious mind that does all the work, it would need an interface. But then the question arises, Who uses the interface the unconscious mind creates? Is the ego part of that interface, and the part that interacts with other egos' interfaces?

Can we say the brain is an analogue computer being able to simulate all physical processes in thd world, even a lightning flash? — Prishon

You could, but it would be question-begging to say that it is a simulation without any justification. The world in our heads need not be anything like the world outside of it.

would — Bitter Crank

The interface IS the ego

lightning — Prishon

If I think of a face, there is an analogue structure visible in the brain.

:smile:

I am ten points ahead of you.. :smile:

I think computers own their AI mainly on speed. The neuron firings in the brain cant compete with the computerclocktime. Nevertheless the processes are much more complicated. — Prishon

Re "AI": Yes, speed and also storage capacity (e.g. big data). Human memory capacity looks tiny compared to it! And, although thinking works at the speed of light (maybe faster) retrieval from memory takes "eons" compared to that using AI techniques.

Re "neuron firings": They must also be quite fast, but I guess thought (as a thinking process) is much faster and, of course, much more complicated. Although brain waves can be traced and measured, I don't think that thought (will ever) can.

Human memory capacity looks tiny compared to it — Alkis Piskas

You can think of every process in the universe. The memory capacity of brain is larger than that all computers together.

Computers are idiot savants. — Bitter Crank

Don't be so ready to belittle them! Computers can do a million things better and faster than us! :smile:
Besides, they are extensions of our mind. In fact, where would were be today w/o them?
(BTW, you are "talking" to a computer programmer, who refuses to work with idiots! :grin:)

Another huge thing the partisans of "brain as computer" do not account for ... — Bitter Crank

Just forget about them ... They certainly don't know what a computer and/or the brain are/is, and certainly they ignore the mind. Because, if you can compare computers with something human, that would be the mind, not the brain. Totally different things! (But this another story ...)

BTW, you are "talking" to a computer programmer, who refuses to work with idiots! :grin:) — Alkis Piskas

Good one! :lol:

You can think of every process in the universe. The memory capacity of brain is larger than that all computers together. — Prishon

What kind of "process"? Anyway, it doesn't really matter. I am talking from a practical point of view. I will give you a very simple example.

Just write a totally random (i.e not structured or formed in any way) 16-digit number, as quick as possible --no extra processing, no mnemonics or other tricks-- in a text processor, save and close the file. Then try to remember it. Most probably you can't. (Except maybe if you are a mnemonist! :smile:) Then open the file with the written number. There it is! Instantly!

You can think now how impotent your memory capacity and retrieval process are compared to those of a computer!

Potentially, you can remember the sequence (though it is highly unlikely the sequence is random, but thats another issue). the problem with computer memories is that if one memory spot is occupied it cant participate in a memory for another object. Thats where neurons come in handy. :smile:

Potentially, you can remember the sequence — Prishon

Yes, I got that you are talking theoretically (because this is what "potentially" implies). That's why I gave you a practical example, one that can be applied to life.

Besides, since you refer to potentiality, whatever physical information a human being can receive from the environment can be stored either on a huge computer disk (... "potentially"! :smile:) or --more realistically-- distributed to smaller ones. But even a relatively small disk can already contain mush more than what a human being can remember.
Only intangible, non-physical, things (feelings, emotions, abstract ideas etc.) cannot be stored as such, i.e. exactly how they are felt or thought of by the human being, but this refers to a spiritual reality, out of the present frame of reference.

In general, whenever you are talking about data (information), you must remember that this is the realm and "the reason of existence" of the computers! This is why we have built them. We wouldn't had to, if we could do all the computations and rebember everything ourselves ...

Ther is, however, something else that I thought just a little while ago: There's a belief that a person's memory actually contains everything that it has been registered into it and that it's only the recollection of the information that is at fault or deficient. Yet, certainly this is theoretical, as it has never been proven and, most importantly, even if it had, it would have some use only if we were able to develop reliable and efficient memory-recovering techniques, something like hypnosis, but more scientific and reliable.

Well, we have gone astray of the topic, the subject of which is proven (at least by me) to be baseless, anyway! :smile:

remember — Alkis Piskas

I couldnt remember anymore what the topic wss. I havent looked yet but I guess it to be information... :smile:

If you consider computers to be built because we wanna store information yes. A memory spot can contain the information of the places of black dots on a while board. All configurations contain the same amount of information ( the number of bits in the memory chip) but every memory is different. They are explicitly present on a memory chip. All of them can be present ina part of your brain too. The difference being that the neurons involved are the same, while on a chip the different memories are stored in separate parts. :smile:

I couldnt remember anymore what the topic wss. I havent looked yet but I guess it to be information. — Prishon

Exactly! It's what I mentioned at the end of my previous message! :grin:
(The topic was --and still is-- "Can we see the brain as an analogue computer?") It is good to write it down each now and then in these long discussions so that we get aware that the wind has made the sailing boat drift away from its course! However, uncotrolled (unmonitored) discussions like these offer for opening new, interesting and juicy subjects! And fun too! :grin:)

f you consider computers to be built because we wanna store information yes — Prishon

Actually, computers are created for computations (as the word itself implies). The first computers had a very small memory capacity. You were using them exclusively for solving problems, demonstrations and that sort of things. (I had worked with one such computer!)

Man, this site is a true relief! It almost brings tears to my eyes! What a difference with Philosophy Stack Exchange! I got kicked out there by some crazy mods... Ah I see you made another comment. Ill resd!