OSDev.org

I believe that without our senses, our brain would probably also work in a deterministic way, no magical randomizer in there (IMHO).

Which is exactly my point. No human is the same. And, for example, we don't know that you and I perceive light the same way. The way I perceive the color red might be closer to the way you perceive yellow, or vice-versa. Yet regardless of whether or not we perceive it identically, we both call it red, and the color truely is the same.

But how do you make a computer "perceive" something? Even if you figured out how to program it to perceive things exactly the way humans do - it will always be biased in the direction of the programmer. You would write the code differently than I would, and guess what? Yours would probably be similar in personality to you, and mine would probably be similar in personality to me... although that sort of thing cannot scientifically be proven. Which brings me to my next point...

There are things which can be scientifically proven, and things which cannot. I'll call those which can be proven "provable", and everything else is "unprovable". Although some people might claim that they have proof, for example, of ESP Can you prove that the human brain really does work on pure logic? You say some of it is based on randomness, but what is randomness? In other words, if you know the state of every single particle in the universe, could you tell me what the state of every single particle is going to be in a nanosecond? No, because things can change rapidly in a nanosecond. In less time? What's the smallest indivisible unit of time? Could you tell me then? So what is randomness?

I personally believe that it would be impossible to realistically simulate a human being inside a computer. Without input and output, what is a human? So you must simulate the entire town in which they live. But wait. Can't events that occur inside the town be initiated by events outside of the town? Maybe we shouls imulate the entire world. But can you prove to me that an event which occurs halfway across the universe cannot effect an even which occurs on earth? So in other words, you must simulate the entire universe in which the human lives, or else they will not be complete.

And this is impossible, with todays technologies. Yes, you can approximate me, but without simulating the entire universe in which I live, you will not necessarily get the full and true me. And I've been kind enough not to ask about parallel universes. Who says they have no affect on what occurs in these universes?

Having finished my rant about the possisbilities and the impossibilites...

Some of you may argue against what I have just said. So be it.

If there is one thing I have just proven, it is that a person can convince themselves of anything they want to. Even if it's farfetched and nonsensical, I can PROVE to myself that I am capable of moving an object from point A to point B using ESP. ;D

Regards,
NotTheCHEAT

A simulation is always just a simulation, and can only be made to simulate/approximate reality, not *be* reality. This is not a novel point. It's a truism. No one is going to argue against it.

That doesn't mean something simulated can't be *like* the thing it is meant to be a simulation of.

No, you can't make a perfect simulation. Is that what you wanted to say?

Ushma wrote:

Crazed123 wrote: Furthermore, as the body ages, so does the brain, and either the user programs or the hardware itself can be influenced differently by an event depending on when it happened.

Therefore, because the user program can change itself OR the hardware can change it based on outside input (thus changing how it is directed), the mind is no machine.

That is, outside events don't have a deterministic effect on the mind, they BLEND with what it already knows.

I suppose I wasn't clear. I never denied that the brain has a very large and variable state. The inputs it receives alter the state and affect future outputs. The decisions you make are based on the sum of your all experiences as well as your current inputs. Your experiences very much make you who you are, determining what your reponses to situations will be.

That is what allows the brain to seem random. The sheer number of possibilities for the state is so enormous to be incomprehensible to humans.

It also seems random due to genetic influences, which actually make it random (discounting such human factors as geeks not being able to get women (nature doesn't know the difference between a geek and a non-geek)) because who mates with whom and thus produces children with thus combined genes that will influence temperament is random.

Crazed123 wrote: I'll try to explain. The brain and its hardware acts like an operating system, interpreting sensory input and mental output to mediate between body and mind, right? However, as it does so it CREATES the user programs that are the conscious and sub-conscious mind. These in turn drive the interpretation of sensory data and direct the body to act. Furthermore, as the body ages, so does the brain, and either the user programs or the hardware itself can be influenced differently by an event depending on when it happened.

I never claimed that the brain is a combinatoric circuitry, where every input has a specific output. It is a machine, with lots of internal state, but it is still a deterministic machine. When you know all the input, and all the state, you _could_ calculate the output, as well as the new state. (Just as a CPU. It's input comes from the bus, it's state is the internal registers)

NotTheCheat:

You say some of it is based on randomness, but what is randomness? In other words, if you know the state of every single particle in the universe, could you tell me what the state of every single particle is going to be in a nanosecond? No, because things can change rapidly in a nanosecond. In less time? What's the smallest indivisible unit of time? Could you tell me then? So what is randomness?

My opinion ! AFAIK, that is the foundation of the 'Chaos-Theory'. Everything can be foreseen, but the number of factors that influence out universe is so big that we can't calculate all of them, and this is randomness then .

Btw, there is no unit of time. There is not even a physical value 'time', nor a timeline or such. IMHO, 'time' was introduced by mankind when they started remembering (and planning) things, so they could organize their thoughts somehow.

cheers Joe

JoeKayzA wrote: I never claimed that the brain is a combinatoric circuitry, where every input has a specific output. It is a machine, with lots of internal state, but it is still a deterministic machine. When you know all the input, and all the state, you _could_ calculate the output, as well as the new state. (Just as a CPU. It's input comes from the bus, it's state is the internal registers)

My opinion ! AFAIK, that is the foundation of the 'Chaos-Theory'. Everything can be foreseen, but the number of factors that influence out universe is so big that we can't calculate all of them, and this is randomness then .

Btw, there is no unit of time. There is not even a physical value 'time', nor a timeline or such. IMHO, 'time' was introduced by mankind when they started remembering (and planning) things, so they could organize their thoughts somehow.

cheers Joe

Also remember genetics affects how the brain develops, which is more or less random due to recombination factors (see previous post) and good old fashioned mutations.

A simulation is always just a simulation, and can only be made to simulate/approximate reality, not *be* reality. This is not a novel point. It's a truism. No one is going to argue against it.

That doesn't mean something simulated can't be *like* the thing it is meant to be a simulation of.

No, you can't make a perfect simulation. Is that what you wanted to say?

Yes, precisely.