For my reply to the OP, human brain cannot be reduced to machines, just because some machines are made to copy some of the functions of human brain.

So, no we cannot see the human brain as computer.

They are just electrical devices, not computers. — Corvus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer

So, no we cannot see the human brain as computer. — Corvus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_(occupation)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer — InPitzotl

Good examples not to trust everything you see on the internet sites.
Could have been written by the teen nerds.

human brain cannot be reduced to machines, just because some machines are made to copy some of the functions of human brain. — Corvus

If you see machines as soulless things made by man, no they cant.

If you see machines as soulless things made by man, no they cant. — Prishon

You can see machines whatever you want, but human brains cannot be reduced to machines.
And analogue computers? That is just another contradictory concept which not makes sense.

Computers use "bits = 0 or 1" not continuos analogue voltages.
All devices using analogue voltages are called appliances.

You can see machines whatever you want, but human brains cannot be reduced to machines. — Corvus

Arent we made out of matter? Thats what you eat. You can say we evelved from some initial state of the universe and thede days we have an internal representation of the physical outside world. In this inside world things are going on like in the outsidde world. Im not saying we are matter only (I think thats what you mean by a machine). Matter has content.

Goos examples of reasons not to trust anything you see on the internet sites.
Could have been written by the teen nerds. — Corvus

There's nothing to debate here.

There's nothing to debate here. — InPitzotl

That was my point mate.

Arent we made out of matter? Thats what you eat. You can say we evelved from some initial state of the universe and thede days we have an internal representation of the physical outside world. In this inside world things are going on like in the outsidde world. Im not saying we are matter only (I think thats what you mean by a machine). Matter has content. — Prishon

Sure but the fact that humans are made of matter, and the physical body is not enough argument to say the real entity of mind and souls are also the physical body and matter.

Sure but the fact that humans are made of matter, and the physical body is not enough argument to say the real entity of mind and souls are also the physical body and matter. — Corvus

The real entity? Whats that?

The real entity? Whats that? — Prishon

The essence.

That was my point mate. — Corvus

Sorry, I'm lost. First you were saying to your knowledge there has never been an analog computer. Then I gave you a listing of them (a museum manifest), and you said those were not computers, "just" electric devices. I then linked you to wiki articles, and you mumbled something about teen nerds. So I said there's nothing debate... and that was your point?

Do you have something interesting to say or not?

The essence. — Corvus

Cant the essence be the non-physical content of matter?

Sorry, I'm lost. First you were saying to your knowledge there has never been an analog computer. Then I gave you a listing of them (a museum manifest), and you said those were not computers, "just" electric devices. I then linked you to wiki articles, and you mumbled something about teen nerds. So I said there's nothing debate... and that was your point?

Do you have something interesting to say or not? — InPitzotl

If anyone comes with the picture of the old electronic analogue meters or vintage recording machines, and call them analogue computers, then no I have no comments further to make.

Cant the essence be the non-physical content of matter? — Prishon

There are many different views on the question. Depends on what you believe, but it is not a simple to just say either this or that.

is not a simple to just say either this or that. — Corvus

Why is that not easy. I can simply say that there is some magical stuff inside matter that becomes our soul and feelings once inside us.

Why is that not easy. I can simply say that there is some magical stuff inside matter that becomes our soul and feelings once inside us. — Prishon

Explain what is the content of the matter, and how is it non-physical.
And elaborate why it should be the essence of human mind with evidence.
I am away for lunch and some work, so my further replies will be later.

Explain what is the content of the matter, and how is it non-physical. — Corvus

Ill think about it. Buon appetito!

If anyone comes with the picture of the old electronic analogue meters or vintage recording machines, and call them analogue computers, — Corvus

Cute narrative, but that is not what happened. I linked to a museum manifest and a wikipedia article. I've yet to call anything an analog computer... I linked to other people calling things analog computers.

But I'll be happy to do that:

This is a picture of an analog computer. More precisely, it's a picture of a picture of one; that picture being from the operating manual of a TR-10.

This is a picture of an analog computer. More precisely, it's a picture of a picture of one; that picture being from the operating manual of a TR-10. — InPitzotl

Was it using the punch cards for the data storage? That is still bits. Maybe it was powered the analogue power, to denote electricity for the machine.

I suppose you could call a horse cart as car, saying that it has wheels, moves and take you from A to B.

Ill think about it. Buon appetito! — Prishon

Thanks mate. The pizza was good. But seriously ...
There are about 900 pages in my Oxford Handbook of Mind, and it weighs like a brick.
So there must be loads of different theories in the Mind and Body topic, and it has been the hot topic ever since Philosophy began in ancient Greece.
But my own point of view on the topic of why human mind cannot be seen as computers is this.

Why human brains are not computers.

1. Non replaceability for the uniqueness
No technical perfection of replacing the matter in computers can render the uniqueness of the individual mind. There are billions of minds out there, but no mind is same with other minds. All minds are unique.
You cannot build Prishon's mind no matter what you do in physics chemistry and computer technology. But a computer mind can be built to be exactly the same, and identical in every possible way by using the exact parts and components. So computers cannot be minds.

2. Non revive-ability
One's mind dies, it can never be revived. It is gone forever. Matter cannot replace the uniqueness of mind. But machines can be rebuilt, repaired and revived. Minds cannot. Therefore minds are not computers.

3. Detectability
No matter how human-like computers are created, and in action, it will be detected as machines by the real humans. There will be no human feelings between the machines and humans. Human consciousness evolves with time and interacts with the environments and situations. Machines lack that property. Well, one can argue, it will be developed into that level in the future, however, at present moment, it has not. Human mind is not a computer.

You wrote (in last comments) what I was thinking. It seems hard to imagine that computers are only computers if bits are involved. Thanks again for your examples! Nice material. I wanna use them in a book. I never knew about these guys! Ive only seen one used in a chaotic drop experiment.

You wrote (in last comments) what I was thinking. It seems hard to imagine that computers are only computers if bits are involved. Thanks again for your examples! Nice material. I wanna use them in a book. I never knew about these guys! Ive only seen one used in a chaotic drop experiment. — Prishon

cool mate. have a nice day :up:

I was just making a comment about what you said! Dont you wanna continue? Are you offended that I said that computers can be analogue?

I was just making a comment about what you said! Dont you wanna continue? Are you offended that I said that computers can be analogue? — Prishon

No I am off to do some work now. Never get offended by philosophical discussions. I just present my views on the points, that is it. I could be wrong, then I stand to be corrected, and learn. If my point was meaningful to the others, that's cool. Nothing less or more than that. I will be back later when peace and quiet. :)

Was it using the punch cards for the data storage? — Corvus

No.

I suppose you could call a horse cart as car, saying that it has wheels, moves and take you from A to B. — Corvus

That would be changing the standard usage of terms. But that's not what's going on here. The TR-10 was commercially sold as an analog computer, as you can clearly see from the operator manual cover. That would make you the one changing the standard usage of the terms.

That would be changing the usage of terms. But that's not what's going on here. The TR-10 was commercially sold as an analog computer, as you can clearly see from the operator manual. That would make you the one changing the usage of the terms. — InPitzotl

It sounds like the time when nobody knew what computer was, or was for. Really it looks like too grossly far fetched definition of computer compared from the modern definition we are familiar with in any shape form or meanings. They might have written anything in their user manual, but that does not qualify as a formally acceptable meaningful term by the contemporary population or computer scientists or philosophers, just because someone written it and published into a wee leaflet.

Dont the examples given make clear that there were computers before the digital ones? They are simply not based on stored information. They are based on non-computed analogues. This makes the term maybe confusing but you can view the analigue representation of a ohysical proces as some kind of continuous computation. Maybe simulator is more appropiate.

It sounds like the time when nobody knew what computers was, or was for. — Corvus

No idea what you're talking about, but:

The PACE TR-10 was developed in 1959.
The ALGOL computer language was originally developed in 1958.
The first computer science degree program was in 1953.
The Association for Computer Machinery was founded in 1947.
The ENIAC was from 1943.

Really it looks like too grossly far fetched definition of computer from the modern definition we are familiar with in any shape form or meanings. — Corvus

Which modern definition exactly? The most popular kind of computers are digital computers, but to say you have never heard of an analog computer in the history of human kind, where analog computer means digital computer, is a bit weird and meaningless. To "philosophically" only count a computer as a computer if it is a digital computer is a bit ridiculous.

Which modern definition exactly? The most popular kind of computers are digital computers, but to say you have never heard of an analog computer in the history of human kind, where analog computer means digital computer, is a bit weird and meaningless. To "philosophically" only count a computer as a computer if it is a digital computer is a bit ridiculous. — InPitzotl

All computer is digital device by my 1st order definition.
Give us your definition of what "analogue" and "computer" is.