The brain is a computer?

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Mind
Email this Topic • Print this Page

If we assume (for the sake of argument) that the brain is a computer;
that is, the brain is purely and only a logical mechanism known as a Turing machine, then what are the implications of this idea?

Firstly, if this is so, it is quite clear to me that a computer cannot evolve because of randomness.

A computer only exists, purely because it was designed to exist.

So we have to conclude then, that if the brain is equal to a computer, and a computer can only be designed,

then the brain had to be designed,
and no amount of randomness could result in a brain manifesting,
just as no amount of randomness could result in a computer manifesting.

...

Another implication.
A computer is profoundly a useless object without a computer programmer to write software for it.

So who or what would be the computer programmer, that actually programs the brain to operate?

;-j

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,036 • Replies: 35

No top replies

@Poseidon,

Hi there,

The way I observe things is that human consciousness designs and builds things in its own image. The highway system, building plumbing, a car, etc. all have properties that very much emulate the workings of human consciousness and human physical being. So it is no surprise to me, that computers have some properties of human. It is natural and expected - from my point of view. The major difference is that human consciousness designed and built the computer, not vice-versa. As human consciousness evolves, so will its design of computers. It is a fun game, and it is what I think makes existence most interesting for me.

Rich

0 Replies

@Poseidon,

Poseidon;68095 wrote:

If we assume (for the sake of argument) that the brain is a computer;
that is, the brain is purely and only a logical mechanism known as a Turing machine, then what are the implications of this idea?

Neither a brain nor any other computer has to be Turing equivalent.

Poseidon;68095 wrote:

Firstly, if this is so, it is quite clear to me that a computer cannot evolve because of randomness.

I have no idea how the first and second ideas are related; also this looks like an "intelligent design" argument.

Poseidon;68095 wrote:

A computer only exists, purely because it was designed to exist.

An artificial computer is designed, by definition. A natural computer is not.

Poseidon;68095 wrote:

So we have to conclude then, that if the brain is equal to a computer, and a computer can only be designed,

then the brain had to be designed,

Artificial computers are a proper subset of all computers, as are brains. All they have to share in common is that their main function is to perform calculations. They don't have to share "design" in common.

The argument

All computers have the function of performing calculations. (my premise)
Some computers were designed. (your premise, not related)
Therefore, brains are designed. (your conclusion)

......it's not even remotely valid. I could hardly address it.

Poseidon;68095 wrote:

and no amount of randomness could result in a brain manifesting,
just as no amount of randomness could result in a computer manifesting.

How do you measure "randomness"? This is a non sequitur.

Poseidon;68095 wrote:

Another implication.
A computer is profoundly a useless object without a computer programmer to write software for it.

Not all computers have "software" in the sense of code which is interpreted or compiled for otherwise passive hardware.

Hardwired neural networks can be examples of such computers. The brain is one of them.

(But you could say that the senses are programming, or rather input for existing software.)

Poseidon;68095 wrote:

So who or what would be the computer programmer, that actually programs the brain to operate?

None, it's a computer that evolved, derp.

And by the way:

Robot swarms 'evolve' effective communication - tech - 23 February 2007 - New Scientist

0 Replies

@Poseidon,

Poseidon;68095 wrote:

If we assume (for the sake of argument) that the brain is a computer;
that is, the brain is purely and only a logical mechanism known as a Turing machine, then what are the implications of this idea?

Firstly, if this is so, it is quite clear to me that a computer cannot evolve because of randomness.

A computer only exists, purely because it was designed to exist.

So we have to conclude then, that if the brain is equal to a computer, and a computer can only be designed,

then the brain had to be designed,
and no amount of randomness could result in a brain manifesting,
just as no amount of randomness could result in a computer manifesting.

...

Another implication.
A computer is profoundly a useless object without a computer programmer to write software for it.

So who or what would be the computer programmer, that actually programs the brain to operate?

;-j

So since eyes are like cameras, and cameras are machines, therefore eyes couldnt have evolved?

Since the liver is like a distillary, and distillations are machines, therefore livers couldnt have evolved?

Do I need to say more?

0 Replies

@Poseidon,

Yeah, it's like, we have to have belief in the ability of nature to create (albeit very slowly and clumsily)

0 Replies

@Poseidon,

I think you need to realise that there is a difference between these two phrases :

x is similar to y
x is equal to y

...

Quote:

Some computers were designed

ALL computers have been designed.
Not some.
ALL
'Some' is not the same as 'All'.

My point as a syllogism :

I) If a brain is nothing more than a computer. In all respects, a computer. Is exactly, precisely and unequivocally a computer.

And
II) If all computers are designed. In all respects, etc...

then
Brains have been designed.

....

Unless Steve Jobs, is merely a randomizer.

1 Reply

@Poseidon,

Poseidon;68176 wrote:

ALL computers have been designed.
Not some.
ALL
'Some' is not the same as 'All'.

See you are thinking of a very narrow definition of "computer". A "computer", in your view, is that thing with a von Neumann architecture which you are using to type your messages which makes *beep boop* noises when something goes wrong.

But that is not the only kind of computer there is.

A computer is anything whose primary function is to perform calculations. In this sense, the brain is a kind of computer. You could say that evolution "designed" the brain if you want to see things that way.

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

A computer has been designed, but this doesn't imply anything. It does not mean that the brain was designed by a designer. What is the designer? Are we assuming the designer is mutually exclusive from the system of the emergent computer/brain?

Obviously it's not.

Also, I think the brain's software would be the environment, and the hardware would be nutrients and genetics, not to mention the parts that make up the brain.

We could look at the brain as emerging from a system, being evolution of life, or whatever you want to name it. As the system progresses the brain becomes more complex. This is a lot like computers except the system must be more outward. Computers emerge from the increased complexity in our technological capabilities, and thinking. Innovation stacks, just as genetics does.Eventually we get to computers and they likewise, become more complex and advanced.

So we can't just extend the analogy, saying that just because a computer has a designer that the brain ought to have one too, and in the same way. Consciousness does not design itself, nor does it do so to the brain. Well ok that's still undetermined, but teleological reasoning is lame.

0 Replies

@Poseidon,

Poseidon;68095 wrote:

If we assume (for the sake of argument) that the brain is a computer;
that is, the brain is purely and only a logical mechanism known as a Turing machine, then what are the implications of this idea?

Firstly, if this is so, it is quite clear to me that a computer cannot evolve because of randomness.

A computer only exists, purely because it was designed to exist.

So we have to conclude then, that if the brain is equal to a computer, and a computer can only be designed,

then the brain had to be designed,
and no amount of randomness could result in a brain manifesting,
just as no amount of randomness could result in a computer manifesting.

...

Another implication.
A computer is profoundly a useless object without a computer programmer to write software for it.

So who or what would be the computer programmer, that actually programs the brain to operate?

;-j

lol. Of course, one only has to look at a brain and look at a computer, one can see that they are not equal. It is a good exposition though. As good as any that I usually read by philosophers.

In answer to your question, a computer programmers are just ordinary human beings, trying to gain subsistence so that he can continue to watch baseball, and enjoy their family. Not too dissimilar from most people I know. I give them credit for finding away to stay alive.

Rich

0 Replies

@Poseidon,

ALL computers are created but some can be programmed to learn on its own. But would it really be natural learning if we programmed the computer to do so?

2 Replies

@Paggos,

If we assume that the brain is a computer, and also assume that all computers are designed, then yes, the brain is designed.

However, the brain is not a computer. Like brain-machine connections of the past, it's only a comparison.

1 Reply

@Poseidon,

Poseidon;68095 wrote:

If we assume (for the sake of argument) that the brain is a computer;
that is, the brain is purely and only a logical mechanism known as a Turing machine, then what are the implications of this idea?

Firstly, if this is so, it is quite clear to me that a computer cannot evolve because of randomness.

A computer only exists, purely because it was designed to exist.

So we have to conclude then, that if the brain is equal to a computer, and a computer can only be designed,

then the brain had to be designed,
and no amount of randomness could result in a brain manifesting,
just as no amount of randomness could result in a computer manifesting.

...

Another implication.
A computer is profoundly a useless object without a computer programmer to write software for it.

So who or what would be the computer programmer, that actually programs the brain to operate?

;-j

Hello,

I've thought of the brain as a kind of computer before. Perhaps a kind of interface for the soul(or conciousness). The awareness seems to be centralized in there somewhere, but not sure if its a product of emergence, or a seperate thing that plugs into this computer, but im leaning towards it being a kind of individual complete entity that uses the brain, among other things, to allow us to experience as sentient beings in this reality.

So its obvious that the computer "user" would be the soul, and the obvious answer for the programmer would either be advanced alien life(through some sort of genesis project), or god. My guess would be the elusive "god" at this point, a sort of all knowing being as i see it now.

im new here and i just wanted to try posting something, im not as educated as some here, but i do seem to be attracted to philosophy.

cheers

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;68426 wrote:

If we assume that the brain is a computer, and also assume that all computers are designed, then yes, the brain is designed.

However, the brain is not a computer. Like brain-machine connections of the past, it's only a comparison.

I think their are aspects of a computer that are similar to way way some of the aspects of the brain might work. I observe this in many things that the Mind invents (I call it Consciousness). It is an interesting aspect of invention, that much of inventions mimic aspects humans. I actually learn a lot about maintaining the health of my body by observing how we maintain health around us - both natural and invented.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

Yes, the brain and computers have similarities, and that is why the brain is so often compared to a computer. But their similarities do not make them the same, they also have significant differences - for example: unlike brains, computers are designed.

0 Replies

@Neil D,

Neil;68427 wrote:

Hello,

I've thought of the brain as a kind of computer before. Perhaps a kind of interface for the soul(or conciousness). The awareness seems to be centralized in there somewhere, but not sure if its a product of emergence, or a seperate thing that plugs into this computer, but im leaning towards it being a kind of individual complete entity that uses the brain, among other things, to allow us to experience as sentient beings in this reality.

So its obvious that the computer "user" would be the soul, and the obvious answer for the programmer would either be advanced alien life(through some sort of genesis project), or god. My guess would be the elusive "god" at this point, a sort of all knowing being as i see it now.

im new here and i just wanted to try posting something, im not as educated as some here, but i do seem to be attracted to philosophy.

cheers

Hi Neil,

I too share many of your views. The way I view the human existence dovetails Chinese philosophy and metaphysics as well as what Itzhak Bentov wrote about. Briefly:

1) The brain and spine nervous system combination, are sensory apparatus, not unlike a moving antenna, that allow humans to receive and transmit information. The human body as a whole provides the ability to move around and explore.

2) The spirit, soul (transcendental) , will, creative mind, and physical body (non-transcendental), are in the core of the human organs (this is the Chinese metaphysical aspect that I am referring to and drawing upon).

3) The brain/spine connect to the organs and form the essential human existence. This is not only interesting from a metaphysical point of view but also us the underpinnings of Chinese medicine, which I have used very effectively to maintain my health over the years.

I apologize if I spun over this very quickly. It is a viewpoint that I developed over many years coming from many different source points. But since you mentioned your viewpoint, which is similar to mine, I thought I would relate it to you.

I have a bit more information here:

The Exploring Mind and Consciousness | My Meaning of Life and Philosophy

but you need some background in Chinese philosophy and my own rather unique way of looking at life, to really understand it. Only my girlfriend and ex-wife wrote back that they understand what I am driving at. Smile

Regards,
Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

Hi Rich,

Yes, I agree with that as being one of my viewpoints(generally speaking). In essense, we could be energy beings that experience matter via the 5 senses(sentient), and this possibly could be the whole reason for existing at all in this reality. Merely to experience, and recieve like an antenna, all that this creation has to offer. And also like an antenna, we recieve electromagnetic radiation in the form of light into our eyes, and an antenna recieves it in the form of radio waves of course(depending on the antenna).

Neil

---------- Post added at 08:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:22 PM ----------

Actually a computer is just a name given to a collection of things, the name being derived from its original purpose.

This may be implied, but to me, the computer is analogous to the body, and the nervous system would be the mainboard, and the brain would be the CPU that plugs into the mainboard.

Comparing any man-made thing to something that occurs from nature may provide a good analogy, but its really like comparing apples to oranges. Obviously a computer cannot manifest itself, but don't things in nature manifest different characteristics, or attributes over time for survival.

I think the brain was either designed the way it is now, or designed differently somehow, and evolved into what it is now.

0 Replies

@Poseidon,

Saying the brain isn't a computer because "it's not designed" is semantic quibbling. The brain is first and foremost a calculating device which can be duplicated, because there is no apparent behind its operation. (Or if there is, in the metaphysical model of the anima mundi offered by some posters in this thread, it probably doesn't matter.)

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;68658 wrote:

Saying the brain isn't a computer because "it's not designed" is semantic quibbling.

I agree. But in context, I think pointing this out is useful as a reminder that the brain-computer comparison is merely a comparison. And that was the purpose of the post.

I'm not aware (perhaps out of sheer ignorance) of anyone involved in researching the brain who asserts that the brain is, in fact, a computer.

0 Replies

@Poseidon,

In neuroscience, as far as I can tell, the intent behind saying "the brain is a computer" varies from "strong metaphor" to "actual belief"

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

I've never read anything to that effect. Again, my say here might very well be out of sheer ignorance, but it was explained to me in Psych 101 that the brain-computer thing is simply a comparison and that brain-machine comparisons have been popular for a couple hundred years or so.

1 Reply

The brain is a computer?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know