The Atheist Experience #341 Cognitive Science Part 2

[rh001YT]

The brain is a computer? that's like saying the wild horse is a merry-go-round horse. I smell "error". The computer is modeled after a very small bit of what the brain can do - computation of human invented math, and store and recall. that's it. To date, computers have not created any music that anyone wants to buy. two time chess champ Anand (Hindu) was educated by Catholics. Error? He is in an arranged marriage. Error? I don't think Anand would say Error! (his wife is quite good looking).

[TheDeadlyGamesman]

@rh001YT You forgot reasoning capabilities. But computers act similarly to the brain: they evolve. Their capabilities evolve, just as the brain did, and in 50 years there's no telling what a computer may be able to do. It will never be the same as a human brain, but they share many parallels that make them similar. Besides, what other way would there be to --describe-- the brain other than comparing it to a similar thing that performs like it?

[rh001YT]

@TheDeadlyGamesman Reasoning is a very limited part of what the brain does, and is a fuzzy word hard to define. At best, reasoning may be little more than the ability to compare and contrast (overlay), coupled w/ store and recall memory according to categories. No computer has ever evolved - please use words very accurately. One dows not describe something according to that which made it, else apples would be like applesauce. No comparison for the apple is just, not even to the pear.

[TheDeadlyGamesman]

@rh001YT Computers don't evolve biologically, so what? They change, and they change drastically. Compare the commodore 64 to a modern home computer, there's no "comparison" -- the modern computer is faster, slimmer, is able to hold more memory, capable of doing many tasks and using many different programs that PC's from the 80's couldn't. In so many senses, the computer has evolved over a mere 30 years of popular use from big, clunky shitboxes to small, portable, powerful machines.

[rh001YT]

@TheDeadlyGamesman Fo you admit that computers don't evolve biologically, (which they would have to for the computer=brain statement to be true), and then you say "so what?", as if such a dismissal excuses your sloppy use of language. Is English your second language? Are you a sloppy thinker and speaker (writer), or do you have an agenda? If the misuse of language was due to agenda, which I think quite likely, then how flimsy your agenda must be if it requires deception and slop.

[TheDeadlyGamesman]

@rh001YT When I say that computers evolve, I'm not referring to biological evolution. That is a given because computers are not biological organisms that reproduce and pass on genes. Perhaps your ignorance of English is such that you take one definition of "evolve" and equate it to all others. For the sake of clarity, evolve in this context means nothing more than "change and growth." That's it. Both human brains and computers have undergone a development of change and growth.

[rh001YT]

@TheDeadlyGamesman You are now going deeper into deception - trying to dig yourself out of a hole. You inititally asserted that one reason why one can say that brains are computers is because computers evolve, like brains. Computers neither evolve, nor do "they" change or grow. Human engineers tinker with computers in a competitive business environment to make more attractive product to increase sales. "they" can't apply to computers. "They" can only refer to lifeforms.

[TheDeadlyGamesman]

@rh001YT I never said brains ARE computers. The person in the video did. What I said was it's a valid comparison though, because they perform similarly. A motor isn't anything like a brain, because it doesn't have any characteristics of it.

But you act like some English scholar when you don't know shit about shit. What are the differences between older hominid brains compared to ours? Probably not much difference in their look, but their functionality is what makes them significantly different.

[rh001YT]

@TheDeadlyGamesman BTW, you are getting sloppier and sloppier with your analogies - what a wicked web we weave..... Evolve means nothing more than "Change and growth" . First of all, evolve never, ever means "change and growth". Cancer cells "change and grow", but end in death of the organsism. Implicit in the word "evolve" is the idea of a change or adaptation that permits continued existence. And actually, human brains have shrunk, not grown. Why not just tell us your agenda?

[TheDeadlyGamesman]

@rh001YT definitions from from Macmillan

when a type of plant or animal evolves, its physical form changes over a long period of time

to gradually change and develop over a period of time.

Since you can't comprehend language, you think "growth" means growing, like getting BIGGER and BADDER every time. Here's a fun definition from dictionary(dot)com -- growth development from a simpler to a more complex stage

So this "continued existence" crap is a bunch of red herring nonsense.

[TheDeadlyGamesman]

@rh001YT Again, what's the problem with comparing the brain to a computer if they work in similar ways? Computers "think," albeit not in the precise manner in which humans think since computers can be quantified mathematically I guess. But even human thoughts are quantifiable to some degree, with MRI technologies we can see the brain in action. If the point is to make sure nothing can be compared to something that's not the exact same, then you've succeeded. Elsewise, it's a valid comparison.

[rh001YT]

@TheDeadlyGamesman Now you want to misuse the word "think" to mean just about anything you want it to mean. MRI technologies do not "quantify" human thought at all, rather they show the locations of blurry clouds of brain activity, the details of which are not at all explained. Either two items are equal, or not. (and technically no two things are equal). When unequal, the "comparison" has a direction, so that "x is like Y" requires that "x" be a subset of "y". So computer is like brain.

[TheDeadlyGamesman]

@rh001YT Can you define "thought"? I'd be interested in reading your response to that.

[rh001YT]

@TheDeadlyGamesman I can't think of any definition for "thought" that is comprehensive. Ultimately such a definition would run into the problem of "the set of all sets including itself". Regarding words: words can be used accurately, but generally only if the author knows the correct definition of the word, and not just the dictionary entry (though the Oxford is a starting place). Some philology helps & one must know when to turn to specialized dictionaries, like Stanford Dict. of Philosophy.

[TheDeadlyGamesman]

@rh001YT Why do you feel computers can't "think" if you can't define "thought"?

[rh001YT]

@TheDeadlyGamesman My friend, you really do suffer from poverty of language. Where in the comment to which you reply did I use the word "feel" - never - so then why did you "feel" justified in such a twist? Can you explain the exact set of events, step by step, that led to that result? As to your question, "think" is a fuzzy, super-metaphor that may not have any single or even fintie group of referants. How then can that word be applied to any situation? Please reveal your agenda.

[rh001YT]

@TheDeadlyGamesman (continued). Look what happens with a fuzzy word like "universe". I could say the "universe" is everything in the universe ( setof all sets fallacy), or I could say it is the sum total of everything, but how could the sum total of everything actually be accounted for and tallied up? "Universe" actually has no meaning, no referrant. The word can be used poeticly of course. And "universal remote control" is understood to mean "works for many home entertainment boxes".

[rh001YT]

@TheDeadlyGamesman (continued) lastly, have you progressed very far in your studies? If something does not exist, or can't be proved to exist in any concrete way, then it is not the burden of the one who denies the existence to prove it does not exist. The burden lies on the one who claims it does exist to prove that it does exist. Now if you make up just any string of words as a definition for "think", and then say "see a computer can do that", such a game will not fool anyone except a fool.

[rh001YT]

@TheDeadlyGamesman (lastly, lastly) Tell us why you object to using language in a very accurate way, especially when discussing technical subjects? Go ahead, enlighten us. How is it that you use YOU to establish the definition of fuzzy words, as if you have some special imprimitur? What is it that you have against honest, effective and accurate communication? What is your agenda? Why are you unwilling to reveal your agenda? Do you think deception makes you more trustable?

[rh001YT]

@TheDeadlyGamesman I had asked you to reveal your agenda - drop the mask. So far you have not. Words are usually part of game strategies for seeking power over others and Mother Nature herself. Humans come to play word games intuitively, due to Will To Power. The intuitive player knows what he/she wants, and then selects goal-oriented word game strategies picked up here and there. The dim sum strategy selection often leads to the misuse of words, which is then the sign of a hidden agenda.

[rh001YT]

What if a religious person were to discuss cognitive science - would not the value judgements be reversed from those of this speaker? Brain imaging on praying nuns and meditating Buddhist monks (why no Hindus?) reveal activation of a part of the brain rarely activated. The heartbeat is smooth and steady, and the subjects report low anxiety, as well as "oneness". Such evidence could be value judged as supportive of religion. Then the atheist could be shown to be in "error". Holy Cow!

[rh001YT]

The brain...is it supposed to be error free? According to whom? We can't hear much above 18Khz, only about 10Khz by age 50. Error? What about the frequencies above 20khz? What about ultraviolet light, error again? according to Krishnamurty, all thinkng is error - Nietzsche would agree. The desire that there SHOULD be order causes the idea of disorder - so we try rearranging things and people. If we like the rearrangement, we say GOOD. error? Did Mother Nature put things in the wrong places?

[rh001YT]

Keeping with the India theme, PM Manmohan Singh (Hindu) opened India to foreign investment. That policy change was opposed by the Communist Party of India (atheist). Was Singh in error? Is the policy to be judged by the outcome, that is, the end justifies the means? The new middle and larger upper class of India (some 200 million people) think Singh did right. What about the atheist Maoists in India - they are brutal murderers and kidnappers - the end justifies the means? How is error pegged?

[rh001YT]

How does one define "error"? Are the people of India in error for adoring Shah Rukhkhan, the biggest Bollywood star ever? He is like a god. That was Shah in the chopper in the early scene of Slum Dog Millionaire. He claims to be Muslim. He often travels by chopper. Was pursuit of a Bollywood career and error - for many it is, that is, if we determine error by success or failure. Is Shah in error for allowing his fans to adhor him? How many cognitive scientists travel by chopper?

[rh001YT]

If the eye is part of the brain, then so is every part of the body that senses, like the ear, the skin, even the bone can feel pain. The urinary tract normally does not feel pain, except when passing a stone. What part of the body is then not part of the brain? I sense a blurry of boundaries here - a value judgement. The dognitive scientists claim about 5 to 10 msecs are needed to process a scene. How then does the batter hit the fastball, or the curveball, or the sinker - by chance?

[rh001YT]

this is a superficial discussion and messy. For instance, morals are not things in the world. In a serious discussion "thing" refers to tangible matter. "Error" is a value judgement in this discussion, where the word should be limited, in a serious discussion, to for instance, visual parralax. Is auditory doppler shift an error? The whistle of the passing train does decrease in pitch to the brain, but in fact the pitch is constant. Is even tempered tuning an error - according to math it is.