Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Any analogy has its limitations. The analogy of the brain with a computer is good because both there and there are “hardware” and “software”. Allows you to clarify all sorts of sore points, such as
There is. Only it's all “soft”. And the physical brain is the hardware that runs all these programs. Hardware will break, and programs will disappear. Moreover, hardware without programs is possible, although it is meaningless, and software without iron is impossible.
If there were no computers at hand, the next analogy would probably be that the brain is physically a book, and the entire spiritual world is the ideas that are set out in the book. But this would not be such a cool analogy, because two programs inside a computer can affect each other, change each other, or generate something third. And the ideas printed in the book are static and affect only the reader.
In general, I vote for the fact that this is a cultural feature of our era, but we are very lucky with this feature.
I believe that the “brain – computer” analogy that has emerged with the development of computing systems is perhaps the worst thing that has happened in the field of understanding the workings of consciousness. The Greeks imagined the soul standing before the gods and obeying one god or another. This model seems to me much closer to reality. Fortunately, popular among the people, this model is not in demand among those who are seriously engaged in the brain.
At least because the brain is an analog system, not a digital one.
Certainly, “it” is not objective facts. Simply because the result is called a fact, not a process. As for objectivity — any comparison is subjective.
A cultural trait, yes. But not only that. There has never been a better analog in history. Unless it's God, if you have a good idea of him.
=))
I agree, this is certainly a feature of our era, called technical illiteracy.
Because the brain is not a computer in any way: it has no processor or other information processing center, no RAM, no ROM, no standard interfaces, no program that processes information.
And even more so, there is nothing even remotely resembling an operating system.
At best, the brain can be compared to a neural network.
)
This is the best comparison available so far.
Both the computer and the brain work exclusively with information.
Both there and there is an information and material part.
Moreover, all living things and the person himself are also a program recorded in the first cell of a new organism.
And Life is the process of executing the program of the genetic code.
Any living organism starts with its first cell (well, almost, because it is organized differently). In the genetic code, the entire age periodization is prescribed until the end of the execution of the genetic code-death.
Hello.
Before there were no computers, there was nothing to compare it with. And now they compare by the operations performed. In essence, mechanization of production “replaced” the hands and feet, and automation “replaces” the brain.
The comparison is, of course, culturally dangerous. Why a computer? In general, a car is like a person, it does something! If a machine is like a man, then a man is like a machine. This means that you can treat it like a car – throw it away, change it, and so on.
Slavery and unchizhenie have always existed, but the transition to machines emphasizes and “justifies”this.
Above all, it is spiritless. Reducing a man to a car is just as harmful as reducing him to animals. Both of them kill a person's spiritual values, make him a soulless animal or robot. It's horrible.
Do not forget that neither the mind (which thinks according to the laws of dialectics), nor emotions can be repeated in a computer. Animals have emotions, but they don't have a dialectical mind capable of creativity. Machines have only a formal mind, surpassing the human mind only by the speed of performing operations and the amount of easily accessible memory.
In general, I think some comparison is possible, but only with certain reservations. Don't forget, people, that we are God's creation! The computer is our assistant, not our rival or heir! Everything must be done intelligently, so as not to deviate from the path of Truth and not perish forever.
God help us!
The fact that the brain is compared to a computer, and consciousness is compared to operating systems, is an objective fact and one of the cultural features of our era. Whether such a comparison is appropriate is a completely different question.
I think not, if we say that people are sure that the brain can be repeated in functionality, because there are real opportunities to repeat the work of the brain through the creation of neural networks. For example, a simple brain (not a human) or a brain segment is difficult to repeat, but it is possible.
I think it is impossible to say that the brain is a computer in the technical sense, because its structure is still different (it is also organic), and its properties may also differ. But the functions of the brain can technically be repeated, this is done now everywhere and everywhere. After all, no one needs a complete brain, just certain parts are enough, which is not difficult. Not needed yet.
I think it's not right to say that, of course, algorithms and interfaces are in the brain, but they go far beyond the standard capabilities of operating systems.
And now let's look at the position of why many people oppose this (a bit of a departure from the question):
Why does someone not like it when the human brain is determined, so to speak, corny? (and probably if we are talking about the brain, we can say that this is how the whole person is defined.)�
The acceptance of such a problem puts a little pressure on uniqueness and the perception of oneself as the crown of evolution. Imagine for religion, for example, the statement that a person can be created from the inanimate. That the soul may not be important in the creation of man. Imagine for ethics the problems of evaluating AI, determining their rights, laws for them, and their interaction with humans. Whose life will be more valuable to AI or yours, or are they equal? Does AI have a soul or at least feelings? What choice rights does the AI have? What happens if someone wants to love AI, get married, and raise children? (I wouldn't mind)�
In short, typical problems of xenophobia generated by traditions, for example. If you found the answer to every question at once, then I hasten to disappoint you, you think like racists, Nazis, homophobes, etc. If you feel uncomfortable or sorry when you see robots with human behavior being beaten (hello to the BostonDynamics videos), then I will not be happy, because you already have an undocumented empathy for machines, which means that your questions are open and should be resolved.�
In the media in general, these problems are very seriously demonstrated. It is surprising, of course, that now the entertainment environment is looking for an answer to such important questions, but in the rest of society they are still putting it off. Examples, games: Overwatch, Deus Ex, Detroit; TV series/movies: Ghost in the Shell, Wild West World, Black Mirror, Blade Runner-there you will encounter problems with religion for droids (~We are all part of the same sphere), and relationships with them, well, respectively.
Exactly so! A person always tries to find an accessible analogy to explain a phenomenon. First there were spirits, then there were vampires and werewolves, now there are aliens and zombies.
The brain is a special “computer”. It is biological, very complex and integrated into a living organism, capable of extracting information and using the results of calculations (learning).
A person modifies his own set of programs, being surrounded by other sets. Human oss are those areas of the brain that cannot yet be affected.