We are no different than computers

[The Grand Nudger]

So, if we were able to reduce HUMAN minds, this combination of intellect and sensation, i.e. our personal experiences, to something like a vast network of computations and signals, does that force us to view our experiences---and by extension, of the entire world---as a sort of computer simulation?

No more than we currently reduce the -entire world- to a series of ones and zeros just because a desktop with sensory sees it that way.  Obviously, you could view it as such, if you wanted to, but force...no. Our experiences.....yeah, I suppose that the suggestion is quite a bit stronger in that regard. We already know that it (experience) -is- such a thing..btw. We're just unclear on the means it is arrived at by. No one here, I assume, thinks that their eyes are windows with a little man sitting behind them?

[Mudhammam]

My bolded addition of 1a.
I really enjoy reading your posts.  I think I understand them, but only after half a dozen readings.

Thanks Julia! I often feel the same way... about my writing. Lol. I do find all your posts quite insightful and more specific than mine, which is always welcome. 

 I see nothing to suggest that Nature is an intentional calculator or producer of anything.

Intentional, no, but perhaps necessary? Besides on comp mind theory, isn't that the case with us?

[JuliaL]

I do find all your posts quite insightful and more specific than mine, which is always welcome.

Thanks back, I never know if I'm saying anything at all, much less that I'm saying what I want to.

I see nothing to suggest that Nature is an intentional calculator or producer of anything.

Intentional, no, but perhaps necessary? Besides on comp mind theory, isn't that the case with us?

If computation refers to something necessary for regularity, even a stochastic regularity in observations, then yes, I'd agree that it is there and needed.  But I think that the minimum needed for regularity has to be compounded for consciousness to emerge.  So on the whole, the calculations nature does to run the universe are more common and much more widespread than those involved in organizing mind even if they are of the same sort.  To me they look necessary, but not specific to consciousness.

[IATIA]

For those interested in 'geek speak', here is some info on brain processing in serial vs. parallel.

It has been suggested that serial processing is more prevalent in higher primates, and there seems to be an evolutionary shift in mammals where humans have the least amount of parallel sensory inputs to higher-order areas (Coleman et al., 1999; Kaas and Garraghty, 1991; Zhang et al., 2001, 1996) and therefore increased serial processing of sensory input. Thus, it appears that in the course of evolution humans may have traded some processing speed for better cognitive control.

[The Grand Nudger]

@Nestor, comp mind doesn't have anything to say, directly, on whether or not we compute intentionally - or whether or not the universe in it's totality is a comp system.  While it doesn't rule out intent, it certainly does suggest that many observed effects attributed -to- intent are, more accurately, machine artifact.  

Ultimately, comp mind suggests that sentience, thought, -being- relies upon the same logical operations that we see present in the universe around us, sure.  It suggests that -if- a human being can compare, and -if- a computer can compare, perhaps human beings and computers leverage that same -if- relationship, that same logical operator, between constituent components in order to do so. In offering that kind of explanation, however,the invocation of those relationships are explicit- there are requirements for the structure and arrangement of those operations to be called comp or comp mind. So, for example, even if rocks were toggles - they are not arranged in such a way as to facilitate computation or comp mind.  They are lacking in necessary relationships and/or necessary component/constituent assemblies.  Rocks don't have associated inputs, alu, memory, language, or output.  No matter how many rocks you pile together, they don't seem to be able to meet those requirements (even though, if you chisel a rock down and etch it's surface you -can- build a chip)...... The material is capable] of being used to perform logical operations (and if it were not then we would not be able to build silicon chips) but it does not, in the form we generally find it, actually perform those operations, nor do we find that rocks are naturally arranged in such a manner as to form the breadth of operations required for consideration -at a minimum- as a comp system.  

Rinse and repeat with "the universe as a whole".   That, to me, is what's so amazing about mind....not that we are able to perform logical functions with our minds (after all..a weighty number of sufficiently chiseled rocks arranged in a fairly braod spectrum of patterns can do that..eh?) but that the structure of our minds was, seemingly, brute forced into it's current iteration. Not only our minds or our computers (which, granted are amazing) but other implementations of the same principles - the nueral nets of jellyfish that provide electro-mechanical impulse to their biological motors directly with no need for intermediary processing as a damned fine Nav package, the chemical language of plants which, while seeming so simple to us as to not present even simple computation (let alone mind) in a recognizable form.. do possess functional and specific knowledge of self/surroundings/other, can communicate with entirely disparate forms of life (the relationship between greenleaf voc and predatory wasps) - can even express recognizable attributes and behaviors such as communication of duress, predatory risk taking and kin selection........

A little computing goes a long way - clearly,.......and it may not take -quite- as much computing as we think to reach a level we would recognize as mind. We have big brains, complex systems - by anyone's measure...but they're brute forced systems (and we need very little of our brains in order to function....google "the man with no brain")...and as such it's difficult to accept that a more efficient and robust implementation would not be possible. For those of us that hold that -mind- is something other than brain it will still, likely, be conceived of complex system capable of performing a wide range of logical operations...(a good working definition of a computer..right thur..btw..lol) - and thats fin..again..look at what those far simpler systems I just referenced can do...what they can express.

We can demonstrate both that comp is possible and does occur (but also when/where it does not), and that the effect is glorious and often unexpected.

[ignoramus]

To err is human.
Isn't it the glitches and imperfections of who we are (our mind) which defines who we are?
Our personalities are a large part of this. Take this away and we are in effect robots now.
It's like talking to a lion.
The sentient intelligence of a purely non human entity (irrespective of who creates it), could be so unique that we wouldn't even be able to communicate with it.
My relationship with my cat is based on 100% animal emotions of both parties. Without that innate evolutionary gift, there is no bond.
Maybe a machine will always ultimately be gullible compared to us because it doesn't have and cannot have the genetic defence mechanisms we inherited.
And if we were to program these into it, then we aren't creating sentience, we are just emulating ourselves...
If that's all we want, just fuck and have a kid. Instant genius.

[Alex K]

@ignoramus

Something like that is the premise of Solaris

[StuW]

Not read the whole of this thread yet so don't know if this has been posted but came across this article this morning...

http://www.eteknix.com/brain-like-circui...man-tasks/

Researchers at UC Santa Barbara successfully constructed a circuit of about 100 artificial synapses, which was proven to perform a simple version of a typical human task like image classification. It is said to be a significant step in the field of Artificial Intelligence. The circuit isn’t even close to human brain because it has very low synapses at 100 compared to 10^15 (one quadrillion) synaptic connections found in the brain but it has still managed to perform the typical human task for the first time.

[pocaracas]

StuW, your copy/paste messed up a number... it's not 1015, but 10^15

[StuW]

Fixed , thanks Poca