For a decent definition of computer in modern times, computers must be able to store, search, compute, and recover data for its minimum functions. With analogue structure of the device, they cannot perform these functions in any practical ways.

An analog(ue?) computer doesnt actually compute. — Prishon

Great point, mate. :up:

There isn't any doubt about the existence of analogue computers, just try to read and understand what people are saying to you. — Daemon

I questioned until it was clear. I am still in denial of those old machines as computers, but did admit that someone went and wrote them into wiki.
BTW, Your attitude is not philosophical, actually despicable. You don't allow people doubt and question on things which are murky in origin.

Thanks for your explanations. Excellent.

Could you stop wasting everybody's time please? — Daemon

If you can't stand dialectics, then why are you here?

The existence of analogue computers is already established a few times in this thread! This is one more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer — Alkis Piskas

That is for ANALOG Computing (an acronym for Atari Newsletter And Lots Of Games) . :D
Atari is a company name, gone bust long time ago.

Sorry for the sarcasm. OK, analogue computers existed in history. I admit that they existed. I was totally unaware of it. I learned something about computers. Cool. But are they relevant to human brains?

And also tell us exactly what those analogue computers do, and the details of their capable functions in the real world.

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.

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.

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. :)

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The real entity? Whats that? — Prishon

The essence.

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.

There's nothing to debate here. — InPitzotl

That was my point mate.

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.

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.

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.

That depends on the people discussing... ☺ — Prishon

I see them all the time :)

The mentioned computers are no fiction. They are real computers but not conforming to the standard view on computers. — Prishon

I was not saying the device are fiction.
I said the discussion will end up in fiction :D

These ARE computers. Only non-digital. They conform to the definition of an analogue computer. True, they are non-digital? What do you expect as an answer? — Prishon

If definitions are too wide, then discussions end up science fiction.

https://www.analogcomputermuseum.org/ — InPitzotl

They are just electrical devices, not computers. — Corvus

What about a record player vs compact disc player? — Prishon

They are just electrical devices, not computers.

If a device is analogue, then it is not a computer.

I am not sure if analogue computer has ever existed. Every computer ever existed in history is all digital from my knowledge.

Can you list some examples of analogue computers? (if there had been any in real world)

I feel that the OP definition is not the same as mine in agnostic.  I would have thought agnostic is for "not being sure", "don't know up to now", rather than impossible to know if God exists.

Agnostics don't get into the logical trap, because their attitude is open, not decided and subject to further thoughts and investigations for the matter.  The logical argument on the atheists was my own logical reflection, which has nothing to do with agnosticism. I was not arguing from agnostic point of view at all, but it was just my own passing logical argument, and it has nothing to do with agnostic.

Obviously the poster saying that agnostic is in logical trap is confused with the whole thing for some reason.

Agnostic is a better position to be, because it is opening the possibility for further investigation and changing their views in the future depending on the personal experience, change of thoughts through reading and discussions, personal feelings and / or logical reflections on the topic.

Clearly, Prishon, you have the same problem as Corvis. — 180 Proof

It sounds like you are rejecting logical argument. Philosophy devoid of logic? cannot be philosophy.

I have forked off a thread for Kant's Critique here, as to avoid getting the two books tangled up in one thread. — darthbarracuda

A great idea. :up:

What does Kant mean here? This paragraph was very confusing to me. — darthbarracuda

This is what I think. When an arithmetic calculation is performed, the answer is not in the adding or subtracting numbers, but it comes from the intuition of the mind . IOW intuition must work to come up with the answer for arithmetic calculations, therefore it is a synthetic judgment process. One does not notice it when it is a simple calculation such as 1+1=2.  But when there are larger (complex) numbers such as 756 + 243 = 999, it is evident that, intuition is called for to come up with the answer.

Geometry is based on the contradiction principle.  Contradiction principle says that, A cannot be "not A" .i.e. a circle cannot be "not circle", a triangle cannot be "not triangle", and geometrical items have their definitions already contained in the concepts. a triangle is a 3 sided polygon and the total of the 3x internally formed angle is 180 degrees.  The definition covers all the triangles in the universe. There is no triangle in the universe, which does not fall in the definition. If it doesn't then it is not a triangle. Therefore geometric judgments are analytical.

:nerd:

Your "logic" is merely semantics. Mention is not affirmation. And I notice you completely avoid how one can address another's claim (e.g. "God exists") without assenting to that claim. Must be you're not educated enough to have been acquainted with Aristotle's maxim
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
No need to thank me, Corvus, it's par for the course. — 180 Proof

It is so simple. Don't try to complicate it.

You believe something, then you must know it. You cannot believe something that you don't know OK?
For you to know something, the thing must exist. You cannot know something not existing.
Therefore even if you say I believe that X doesn't exist, you are admitting X exists, when you utter the statement. You are contradicting yourself by uttering the statement.

My logic is semantic? All logic is semantic. Reason is semantic, and without language we are just zombies.

So define your g/G (i.e. select a deity actually worshipped by any religious tradition), claim it is more-than-imaginary, — 180 Proof

I don't know anything about God you listed. I was just demonstrating the logical argument, and it proved with the conclusive truth. It could have been about any object X. It was just a logical argument.

The fact that you have written down "God" means that you are a theist according to the conclusion of the argument. Even if you say that you will try to disprove it as empty concept, you have already proved that you know it exists by writing the word "God".

If you really did not believe it existed, then there would be nothing to say about it, even the name.

Sorry if my reply was not appropriate. I will not involve in debates nobody asked me to again. — javi2541997

Your reply was appropriate. Don't feel like that.
I was just trying to elaborate more in Wittgensteinian manner on the argument. :)

t is impossible to be an atheist but in the other hand, it is "possible" to believe in something you do not have proofs about as God. — javi2541997

To be a genuine atheist, one has to be silent, when asked "Does God exist?"

It follows when one says, God does not exist, it it same meaning as God does exist.

It is impossible to be an atheist. Because, to say that God does not exist, one must know what God is. If one knows about God, then God must exist, because one cannot know what does not exist.