How Are People Different From Computing Machines And Systems?

[DayLight]

At one point, we thought that humans and animals were very different things, almost like different species. But at some point we discovered many similarities between us. We realized that we are in some sense "a human animal". In other words, we share things in common. So it's not about us being completely separate things, it's about us being on the continuum, being on the same line, but further away in development.

At one point, I realized that we compute things. We resemble computers. But we are much further on the development scale than computers are. So maybe comparing a computer to a human is like comparing a single cell organism to a human body.

There are two points here: one is that we are much more developed than computers. And the other is that we are more similar to computers than we first thought.

It took a few years of learning for me to start seeing this. So it's not easy to see this picture.

Think of a spider. It responds to the environment with a few of pre-programmed responses. The spider is pretty limited in its programming. It senses us and it does stuff in response to sensing us. And those responses we call "life". But, do you think that one day we could program robots to act like a spider acts? Couldn't a robot be programmed to sense the object near by and to move away? Or attack (depending on what object it senses?)
So the spiders can multiply, replicate. But I bet at some point we could come up with a way to program that. The spiders are self recharging. Maybe we could program that in too? I mean what if we could program a robot to "sense" a power outlet and come and plug itself in?

Remember, I am not saying that computers are like humans. I am saying that they have things in common, they are made of the same computing like stuff (but computers are very limited, while humans are highly complex).

LIFE is a set of self modifying learning programs. They are a set of programs that are able to learn, to adapt to the environment, to write new programs. Maybe some day we could make a computer program which is able to modify itself? Maybe to adapt to the changes?

The computers seem "dead" (like they are not alive) because they don't do anything by themselves. They need our input. They are more like tools we use rather than living beings. But imagine a computer who is sensing that you're coming, activates itself and starts interacting with you? Wouldn't that give you the perception as though the computer is "alive"?

We don't understand our SELF yet. We don't know what we are made of. (mentally and psychologically speaking). Like how does the thinking occur? What are emotions and feelings? What does it mean to get your feelings hurt and why can't a computer get their feelings hurt?

And because we are not very self aware in this area, we don't see the similarities between our SELF and other computing machines. We see ourselves as some miracle of nature, something very different from all the other things we see and know. But, if we were smart enough to know self, we would see the similarities, and how we are all made of the same stuff.

How do you make a decision? You compute it. Like you would give some data to a computer and have it compute the probability for you. It's something like that. Your decisions are computed based on "data" stored in your brain. That's why different people would make different decisions about the same event. People can "see" reality only based on what information is stored in their brain. It's like their brain uses those bits of information to draw a picture of reality for those people. And so that's why perception of reality is different for different people. Beliefs are different because the computing brain is using the data stored in those people's brain to come up with that stuff.

Free will is - the fact that we can make a decision based on the data stored in OUR brain irrespective of what decisions other people make based on the data stored in their brain.

What are responses to the environment? They are computed by your brain based on the type of genes (which is a program) and experiences and likes and dislikes you have. Your responses to the environment will change as your experiences and preferences change.

Your preferences are built overtime by interactions. You interact with something and you like the interaction, so you start to like that shape or thing or a person. If you look at the sky and it gives you a good feeling, you may start liking the color blue. If you interact with your father, and he has narrow eyes, and your interactions give you good feelings, you may develop a preference for people with narrow eyes.

What are emotions? They are your body's way of associating thoughts with certain physical sensations and then triggering these sensations in response to thoughts.

So your body system is a bunch of complex self modifying adapting programs. And your perception of reality is computed by your brain based on all the data stored in your own brain. And this perception of reality will change as data in your brain changes.

Your body has a digestive system. And many other systems. They are all interlocked and interconnected into one huge "human body" system. But this body system could not function unless it was interconnected into the Earth system. For your digestive system would not help you survive unless there was a "food growing" system developed on Earth. (for example)

So all these interconnections and how they work together - it reminds me of factories which we create to make things happen. So your body is like a factory. So we even have similarities with factories.

And your brain computes things in somewhat similar way to a computer computing things.

And then there are abstract systems, such as a public school system, welfare system, political system and all kinds of system. Our life consists of systems.

Think about it: just like our body consists of all kinds of systems physically, in the same way, our entire social structure is made up of abstract systems.

So we are made up of systems.

A computer is called: "a computer system". The human body could be called: "a human body system".

There are physical systems (with physical parts interconnected in a certain way) and there are abstract systems (with ideas and behaviors connected in a certain way).

And a human body has both. A human body biological system is the obvious of course. But the way a human mind works, it's also like a system. It follows certain logical steps to calculate things such as responses, decisions and conclusions. And it has a system of how it goes about its daily life. So a human has A LOT in common with both kinds of systems.

Then there is a bird flocking example. Each bird is programmed to do certain movements (in relationships to another bird). And together, as a collective, they create an emergent behavior called flocking. So in our human body system, each little part (whether biological or mental) does it's little part and together collectively all these parts emerge what we perceive as "human intelligence".

So if you added all this stuff to a computer: being able to replicate, being able to adapt to the environment, being able to feel physical sensations... then you would be closer to making a computer more human like.

So a human is just a more complex version of a computing machine (than the computers we have).

How does the physical connect to the abstract? How can we physical beings interact with abstract things such as ideas? How does our thinking connect to our physical biological body? I think the answer lies in the possibility that everything is abstract at the fundamental level and that the physical things we see is an illusion in a sense.

Like if you think of a phantom leg syndrome... Why does a leg still hurt when it's not even there anymore? It's because it doesn't matter if the leg is there or not. What matters is whether you were programmed to believe that the leg is there. Because it's our programming which made us believe that the leg is there in the first place. This programming created the leg or the perception of the leg.

Why do some people feel pain and others don't? It's because their body program told them to feel it (in some cases) and it didn't say the same thing to those who can't feel it.

Why are some people allergic to air and have to live in some bag or something? It's because their program is messed up in some way.
Sometimes the body cells start to attack themselves. It's like a computer bug, things break down, systems break down.

Why do some people make very stupid decisions (seemingly very illogical)? In some cases, it's because of a computer bug in their brain, it doesn't work right, it doesn't compute correctly, something is messed up in that system.

So, we are all (as One Living Being) are one huge interconnected system. And this system is alive because it's complex and so it emerges the intelligence and consciousness. There are smaller systems, less complex. And so these systems could be alive too in some way, like a single cell organism is alive even though it's not as complex as a human body.

Afterall belief systems for example have properties of life: "they evolve, they adapt, they are born, they die, they grow".

And speaking of replicating and giving birth... humans are actually not capable of replicating individually. It's a human system (consisting of male and female parts) which is able to replicate. So when you're trying to compare some living thing to another, consider that it's only as a collective that humans can replicate (collective meaning 2 people).

Consider an abstract system like Christianity for example... It gives birth to smaller branches (denominations). And think of a big church "dividing" and giving birth to a smaller church (don't cells also divide in order to produce a new living being?)

So computers, factories and systems have a lot in common with us. And if we consist of all three: factory like function and set up, a system governing all the body functions (and mental), and a computing machine....and we are alive.... could some of them be simpler versions of life too?

[Orbit]

We are more complex, biological, and have emotions. That's what makes humans different.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

Physical things are either organic or inorganic.  Only organic things can be considered "alive".  Inorganic things can be used by animals as tools or to meet their needs.  Humans, with the most developed brains of all the animals, have abstract ideas, which are data that humans use to make decisions.

 

I hope you are able to go to university and study a subject that interests you.  You are very intelligent and I think being exposed to some of the ideas that people have developed over the course of history would be very helpful.  

 

There is an ancient saying "there is nothing new under the sun" and I think that is very true.  (It actually appears in Ecclesiastes, but I wouldn't be surprised if it appeared in an earlier text, since much of the bible was copied from earlier traditions and other cultures).

 

If I could go back to university I would want to study the history of science, and science communication.  I think that is a very important area for humanity.  The better the public and their representatives can understand what humans have already discovered about the world, and know what questions are still to be answered, the better off the world will be.

 

Using the scientific method has enabled humans to make use of organic and inorganic things in our environment, to meet our needs.  I see future progress as being dependent on how well we can keep doing this.  Religions like xianity have distracted humans from making progress,  and that's why I am so glad I realised xianity was not useful to me and there were better ways of making sense of the world.

[♦ Fuego ♦]

Life is an interesting thing to ponder. I've always wondered "Why is life?" Why would chemicals be so damn motivated to replicate their structure and to develop survival variations? That seems like the strangest thing. I'd expect worlds of enormous complexity and differences throughout the universe, but why did life arise at all? If we are just chemicals, where did the first replication arise, and why is it "important" to make more. That is the part that seems like a program that was written, but then that presupposes a writer, and leads back in a circle.

 

At what point is there consciousness? FreeThinkerNZ pointed out that humans use abstract thought. I believe that this is the primary thing that sets us apart from other creatures. They can think abstractly also, but we have a tremendous ability to do so. Math, languages, tools, tools that make tools, science, money, music, art, politics, and unfortunately religion. We have the ability and desire to learn, to figure out what reality is about. We assign value to it and pursue knowledge and experience. Perhaps all of this is just an added part of the mental ability that gives us an edge on creatures with better muscles, claws, teeth, eyes, ears, and noses than us - the ability that enables us to survive as a species, if in fact we evolved on Earth... :-)  I can't imagine that sharks or bugs have a lot of abstract thought. Then again, bees communicate through a complex dance where the next field or tree in blossom can be found. That is abstraction in action, and the other bees know what it all means without having to learn it (so far as we can discern).

 

You pointed out several flaws in the organic computer design. Sometimes the genetic code goes awry, and sometimes it kills itself reacting to something like a peanut, thus bringing about the problem it was trying to avoid. But overall it works well enough to survive and reproduce. And some people seem to make very stupid decisions. We have developed laws and cultures that (at least purport to) value human life highly. Even useless psychotic nutjobs are kept alive and given health care rather than simply disposing of them with a shot to the head. Our survival instincts start to conflict with philosophies and beliefs that arose from our abstractions of life. We see the value in nullifying crazy criminal types, but are hindered from removing them entirely by beliefs about the proper use of force, as well as religion telling us what ought to be done. Perhaps another survival motive, to not be controlled by governments (basically just other people), outweighs the desire to see aberrant humans destroyed.

 

Most of us suck at computing with our brains. Computers are tools we designed to do this job much more efficiently and accurately. Occasionally we find a human that excels at complex mental math. I know a guy that designed circuit boards entirely in his head before ever doing a layout. He can to this day recall every board he ever did in photographic detail and explain the logic paths of every line (multiple layer boards). But he is a quirk and did not reproduce, so that quality disappears with him. Perhaps it will arise again, as a trait that someone else will pass on. Computers also don't initiate learning, at least in the forms we typically create. I suppose we could make a computer/robot that could build more of itself, and be given instructions to do this annually, similar to wildlife.

 

But I think that the real puzzle is "why is life?" What was the earliest form and how did it multiply, and why was it motivated to make sure that happened again?

[DayLight]

I asked the wrong question. It should have been: what do we have in common with computing machines?

 

This is my idea (some people need me to say it, so I am saying it, it's not some scientifically proven data):

 

Thinking is computing.  So we have computing in common.  How would you think unless you were "computing"?   

 

Thinking is logical, step by step, until the decision is reached.  So like if you're trying to decide whether to visit someone, you will think (either consciously or in your unconscious part, where most of the thinking occurs): if I go there, what positive effect will it give me?  How could I know which effect it will give me?  Can I predict it?  Yes, I have some data from the past: there was that experience and I felt good when I interacted with this person.  But what if I never visited, how could I predict the outcome?  Well, then I would rely on information about the person and see if we have anything in common, possibly any subjects we could talk about together?  On the other hand, if I don't go there, what possible losses will that bring me?

 

Sometimes I think a little bit this way consciously when trying to decide.  But at other times, it only takes a second of thinking and I reach my decision.  And I am wondering: where did that decision come from?  I didn't even have time to think about it.  So them I am guessing: there is a part of me which computes things without me being aware, so this part of me must have done the computing and just forwarded a decision to me (which popped into my head in the conscious part of me).

 

And so I am assuming all this, and partly it's because I heard that we sometimes do things we don't know why we do, sometimes we do things we regret (as though someone else did it for us), and sometimes we make a decision first and a second later become consciously aware of it.

 

Thinking (computing) of the unconscious is much faster and that's why we can make a decision so fast if we're not consciously thinking about it.  But computing consciously  is a slow process.  My idea is that unconscious computing doesn't use a symbolic language, (I don't know what language it uses, maybe it's binary or something).  But it looks like it processes things much faster than the symbolic language we are using when we are consciously computing (thinking). 

 

Sometimes we have a "gut feeling".   I believe that "gut feeling" is a decision computed in the unconscious and forwarded into conscious as a feeling BECAUSE it didn't have time to translate the decision into the symbolic language.  So it left the decision in it's own language.

I read that people who can't "feel" like this, are very limited in their thinking and ability to solve problems.  I am assuming that's because they don't have a link to the fastest processing part of themselves, the unconscious.  It seems to be using the "feeling" as a way to pass the message into the conscious.

 

These are my conclusions based on what I heard from others. 

[seven77]

When reading the initial post of this thread, I had some unexpected reactions. They can be summed up as follows:

 

 

The OP asked:

 

Think of a spider. It responds to the environment with a few of pre-programmed responses. The spider is pretty limited in its programming. It senses us and it does stuff in response to sensing us. And those responses we call "life". But, do you think that one day we could program robots to act like a spider acts? Couldn't a robot be programmed to sense the object near by and to move away? Or attack (depending on what object it senses?) So the spiders can multiply, replicate. But I bet at some point we could come up with a way to program that. The spiders are self recharging. Maybe we could program that in too? I mean what if we could program a robot to "sense" a power outlet and come and plug itself in?

 

 

A team has already made a robot with the brain of a worm. It can sense obstacles and turns away from them. See: CNN Article // YouTube Video. Granted, it was only a roundworm, but the point still stands: scientists have already 'programmed life' and then placed that program into a machine. 

 

Here's a link to the Wiki page for self-replicating machines. Yes, there are actual scientific theories related to this and there is some current investigation into the field. Primarily nanotech, which is predicted to be an emerging industry. It kind of is, but not on the level that the OP talks about. 

 

I think the ultimate goal should be to have a machine that does not require recharging, at least not the kind that requires outlets. The self-replicating machine would ultimately have to be somewhat biologic, utilizing the resources of its environment to satisfy its energy consumption needs. A truly successful self-replicating device would either have to be a complex system like a human [with some very specific fuel requirements for optimal operation] or perhaps with a singular system [currently being hammered out for use via machine tools] such as solar powered vehicles, body heat powered charging devices and super efficient self-charging batteries. 

 

The computers seem "dead" (like they are not alive) because they don't do anything by themselves. They need our input. They are more like tools we use rather than living beings. But imagine a computer who is sensing that you're coming, activates itself and starts interacting with you? Wouldn't that give you the perception as though the computer is "alive"?

 

 

Perhaps. I am not sure that we will ever make a perfect humanoid machine. Or anything close, really. I don't think that machines will ever be able to seem as if they are truly alive. Not due to the limitations of imagination or skill, but due to myriad of real world issues that will accompany the so-called robotic revolution. Machine-people [humanoids, robots, etc] will likely replace some humans in very literal ways. Are we going to be ok with that? Likely not, imo.

 

See some of today's most advanced humanoid robots in action here: That Robot Was Freakin' Me Out!

 

 

 

Your body has a digestive system. And many other systems. They are all interlocked and interconnected into one huge "human body" system. But this body system could not function unless it was interconnected into the Earth system. For your digestive system would not help you survive unless there was a "food growing" system developed on Earth. (for example)

 

A food growing system? No, there are ecosystems and there is a planet called Earth, but there is no "food growing" system. Our digestive system enabled us humans to survive by letting us eat pretty much anything. Most of our fellow mammals have very specific and strict requirements, which if not met, lead to malnutrition, stunted growth, falling reproductive rates and death. Humanity [as a whole] has not experienced anything like it since our species first came about. Life on the Savannah was rough; a super volcano eruption may have caused it. Maybe it was climate changes? Any way you look at it, it has only been in the past 10k years or so that humans began to develop 'food growing' systems to feed ourselves. 

 

Agriculture may have been our single worst idea, as it caused an eruption of health problems formerly unknown to mankind. It also led to the development of centralized power, destroyed traditional ways of life, wrecked the ecology of native lands, and so on. It even led to the development of legalism and organized religion, things that most of us here on ex-c find to be less than savory, to say the least.

 

Why are some people allergic to air and have to live in some bag or something? It's because their program is messed up in some way.

Sometimes the body cells start to attack themselves. It's like a computer bug, things break down, systems break down.

 

Hence why they are often referred to as 'viruses'. 

 

Why do some people make very stupid decisions (seemingly very illogical)? In some cases, it's because of a computer bug in their brain, it doesn't work right, it doesn't compute correctly, something is messed up in that system.

 

Quite often, what are seen as 'stupid decision' are merely stupid because the individual has decided to act contrary to the rules of the wider accepted system under which they live. What do I mean by this? I have a relative who has been in and out of prison for the better part of his adult years. He is 31 now, but has little idea of how to function now that he is outside of the prison walls. He routinely does 'stupid' things like shoplift out of habit. But why is shoplifting 'stupid'? Who decided that some monolithic entity like Wal-mart was more entitled to a gallon of milk, a pair of shorts or a compact chainsaw (all items that he has taken) than my relative is? Who decided that fining someone $100 for stealing a gallon of milk was a just punishment? Who decided that it was a wise use of tax dollars to jail someone for 60 days for stealing a compact chainsaw?

 

We can say "well, all theft is wrong because it is wrong to steal, period." But why is that so? If your argument retreats into Bible land or the constitution, then it's worthless, imo. The laws (be they by proxy from God or directly from mankind) exist to keep us from screwing each other over. Once the rights and abilities of the vast majority to provide for them and theirs were taken away by a few rich scumfucks, they knew that they'd better cover their asses by making it illegal to simply walk into a store and steal your groceries rather than working X hours to earn money to purchase them legally. 

 

In essence, 'stupid' decisions are likely the product of two things, imo: evolutionary lag (such as my relative who habitually shoplifts to meet the needs of himself and his family because he can't quite grasp why the store is so pissed over peanuts, basically) or broken programming. Broken programming is often caused by abuse and trauma, and let's not forget the use of drugs as well. That's another topic for another reply, though. 

 

So computers, factories and systems have a lot in common with us. And if we consist of all three: factory like function and set up, a system governing all the body functions (and mental), and a computing machine....and we are alive.... could some of them be simpler versions of life too?

 

DNA and RNA are code. We are comprised of cellular automation, always moving, always turning off and on...technically operating according to binary code, just like that of a computer. All of these systems of which you speak...are technological in nature. 

 

However the endpoint of your ideas seems to be that computers, factories and systems have a lot in common with us. That is incorrect. THEY ARE US; WE ARE THEM. Computers and factories are products of the human mind. The recognition, development and operation of complex systems is the primary focus of the human mind. They are indeed simpler versions of life, but their lives are subject to our whims. We've only scratched the surface with this technological talk. A better place to look for complex systems is nature, the vast Earth. Those are the systems we seek to emulate and control. 

 

Take a look at this Wiki: Swarm Intelligence. That is the future of programming, computers, nanotech, and ultimately mankind. I'm stopping the thought train here. This isn't the science sub. To some of us (like myself) technology is very close to spirituality. It's easy to get carried away. 

[FreeThinkerNZ]

I always feel like I have gained a few IQ points after I read a Seven77 post, particularly ones like these.

 

Thanks, lady.

[seven77]

Yay for IQ points! 

I'm just doing my part to keep my aspiritual brain from atrophying into obsolescence. 

 

 

What is human? What do you mean when you say 'think'? What are emotions? -- Those are the questions of the scientist who developed the android shown in the video (and one of the videos linked above). These questions are not just spiritual ZOMG meaning-of-it-all type questions; they are legitimate scientific inquiry in the field of AI development.

 

The age of spiritual machines may very well be upon us. 

[Leo]

I think one vital mistake people make is to think of a "computer" as a single entity. The computer is nothing without some software called a Basic input output system (BIOS) to inform on the hardware and manipulate it. Even with that, it is nothing without an operating system. All an operating system is is an environment that gives programs access to the system. When you say "computer", usually you mean a program or set of programs.

 

In short, a computer is a hive of programs. The Internet is a network of autonomous machines -- yet another hive. Computer programs, even very intelligent computer programs, are a lot more like insects than humans.

 

Several human characteristics would be very annoying and unpredictable if given to computers. Medical people / shrinks will no doubt find something amiss in my writeup here because I'm pretty scant on that genera of study. However, the way computers encode memory is far different than the way you and I do. The memory when recalled is not recalled and then re-stored into memory. A copy is taken from one place and moved to another for usage. For us, we recall, then re-encode the memory with brand-new associations that we make, associations that may or may not even make practical sense. It's not the database of records your computer uses.

 

Here's something else: bipedalism. Very inefficient for a mechanical system to move around. Bipedal navigation takes one hell of a lot of processing power, very wasteful in computer terms. Better to have tractor treads or wheels to go on, which is why robots usually have these.

 

In terms of sensing and reacting to environment, we have had that licked for decades. Many industries use robots in dangerous environments, tools that run along tracks, lift and carry things, fit parts together, make corrections, etc.

 

Computers are only like us in that they are an extension of us. Any sufficiently artificially intelligent machine would completely understand this. Unlike us and other life systems, there are no vestigial parts lying around, and when bugs are found they get fixed via intervention -- by us.

 

Learn computer technology and you will learn about design. What little I do understand of biology tells me quite a different story.

 

When a computer "sense" something, it registers and records what's wrong. I should say "a computer program senses something." It is designed: there is no need for a robot to feel pain in order for it to react. Temperature sensors indicate to your BIOS that the CPU in your machine is running hot, so an instruction is sent to increase the voltage sent to the CPU fan, and you hear "My computer fan seems to be really speeding up when ... happens." And that is an extremely simplistic example. But no need for the machine to suffer anything in order to understand there's a problem and respond to it.

 

Sentry software does not "get angry" when a virus or third-party hacker tries to break into a bank's systems, or even into Google. It does react as programmed, in some cases even cataloging new characteristics to watch for.

 

There's a lot more artificial intelligence, every bit of it designed, in your world today than most people realize. Most of it does things we are bad at: attention to detail, tedious monitoring, stuff like that.

 

Computer programs don't have the inefficient concept of pain, but they don't have the inefficient concept of pleasure either. To a program, a task is either complete, ongoing, has been aborted, or something was shut down. A few other things, but entirely functional. And by "task", I mean a single instruction. Computer instructions are the proverbial Russian doll, nested inside one another, for a single larger instruction. None of it has any feeling, although presumably it could simulate feelings under the right circumstances. Something I have yet to see.

 

Learning.

How do we do it, and why? Very very inefficient. You spent 12 years in school before you even got off to university. And not all of us are even that good at it. The only A+ I remember getting is the one under Blood Type on my Homeland Security ID card.

And yet, software can "learn" from one another by simple data sharing. It need not "experience" anything. It can sort, manage, retrieve, discard, and even repair data far faster thaqn any of us could even contemplate.

 

But no piece of software is having these kinds of conversations with itself or other pieces of software. Why not? Because we haven't designed it to do that yet. It's my opinion that we never will do so. We build machines to be assets to us, not liabilities. And when it comes to production, all this pleasure pain learning experiencing stuff is a grave liability, not an asset.

 

Computers, software, and networks are clearly designed. Robots are clearly designed. Your iPhone or Android is clearly designed, and it works well within the ecosystem of apps designed for it.

 

We, on the other hand? The more I learn, the less it looks to me like we are designed. Or we and our environment were designed with a lot of bugs, figuratively and otherwise. This weekend I watched a couple young lions who, according to the documentary, were still young and inexperienced, learning how to hunt.. They went a long time without food and finally, when they caught something, I nearly had to turn the video off. Minutes and minutes of screams of the prey. No sleeper hold where the prey goes unconscious in seconds, like so many nature lovers would have you believe. No machine that was designed would do that. Machines, before "birth", would already come equipped with all the knowledge from previous designs, and set out fully functional.

[Cousin Ricky]

I think you are conflating life with sentience, or self-awareness. A tree has life, but no sentience. At this time, computers are neither alive nor sentient, but I believe that, given the human drive to tinker and invent, we will eventually build a sentient computer (at which point we will be faced will a terrible ethical dilemma). But it will not be a life form as we define life.