I’ve heard a lot of people trying to have this argument lately. Probably because they think it’s something that they can win. So here’s your opportunity to try and have this argument in a legitimate setting, not by hijacking someone else’s thread.
In a nutshell, your brain is a living entity that creates new neural passageways and strengthens them with use. In a lot of ways your brain is sort of like a processor. Except it’s not, because any part of your brain can repurpose itself to take over for any other part. So exactly what is your brain and how does it actually work? Scientists are still working out that question, and they probably will be for quite some time.
There’s also the problem that your entire body is covered in nerves. Exactly where is the memory of a sensation stored? Is it in your brain or in your arm or in your fingertips?
There’s also a little problem. You can pump blood through the body and you can supply it with oxygen and food, but the person doesn’t always necessarily come back say in a coma. Why? How is it that they can no longer control their brain?
I’m not saying I know the answers to any of the questions. I’m saying that precisely because I do not know the answers, I shouldn’t make any judgment calls.
But I know our brain is a helluva lot more complex than a TI 86 calculator.
Here’s Merriam Webster’s definition of a computer: “one that computes; specifically**:** a programmable usually electronic device that can store, retrieve, and process data”
and their definition of processor: “a machine, company, etc., that treats, prepares, or handles something”
By those definitions, the human brain is definitely both. In all honesty (not baiting here), why would this be considered a negative?
Are you? Because if not, I find this interesting and would like to discuss it. But I have no interest in winning an argument, and won’t be “trying” anything. If you just want to discuss something interesting without taking sides, let me know.
Edit: Nobody at my University, including my Lecturers (who disagreed with each other on this matter), ever advocated a ‘the’ position. And I won’t either.
Nowhere in the definition of “processor” does it say “it can not repurpose other parts to take over for other parts”. In fact, the entire concept of “redundancy” in engineering is specifically to allow one part to take over for another part in case a part fails. The internet is a great example of a software network that was designed specifically for redundancy: if one server in your traffic route goes down, the network will automatically reroute and repurpose a different server to allow the data to continue to flow. One of the original design considerations for the internet in the U.S. was that it needed to be able to remain a reliable communications network even if entire sections of the country were destroyed by nuclear war.
A processor can have attached storage. This could be as simple as RAM and hard drives, or as complex as a data cloud, which is a decentralized storage system where the answer of “where is the data stored” is purposefully vague.
Unrecoverable segmentation fault due to corruption in the kernel.
I’m pretty sure almost everyone agrees with that, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible to create a brain-like processor, or that the brain isn’t processor-like. Our brain is a helluva lot more complex than a mite’s, but they are both brains.
Everything you said compares the brain to a computer, but that doesn’t mean it’s just a computer and nothing more.
And comparing our brain to the brain in a much simpler creature is fair, but even the brain of a mite is infinitely more sophisticated than the most sophisticated computer.
For one thing I don’t see computers going around duplicating themselves.
Well it really depends by what you mean by “nothing more”. I mean, you could say it’s also an airbag to stop the skull from getting squished, a delicious meal for lions, and a fun thing to poke with a stick, but that’s kind of aside from the point. I mean, no one is saying that the brain is EXACTLY the same as an electronic CPU; we know it’s made of smelly grey goo instead of silicon parts and green circuit boards, and we know it’s designed to control a biological body rather than a metal one. The argument most people have is whether it basically functions like a processor, and whether you could simulate its functions through software. If you just mean that it has built-in functions that off-the-shelf Intel CPU’s don’t, like telling you when you’re hungry and convincing you to go home with someone you really shouldn’t when drunk, well then yes, of course it’s a little different.
I’d disagree with that. A mite can’t beat Kasparov at chess, become the champion of Jeopardy, or compose a classical symphony, but computers have. Who gets to judge how “sophisticated” a mind is?
Sure, we can say that the brain is “programmed”… but that would imply a “programmer” and I’m not sure you’re willing to jump in bed with the creationists?
