In The Ravenous Brain, Daniel Bor brings to light the question: "Are we as mental beings nothing more than biological computers, or is there something special about the sensations we experience, and the meaning we attribute to the world, and that could never be captured in software form?" (pg. 4). In his book, Bor argues that there is something special about our brains. John R. Searle also argues this point. According to Searle's article, Is the Brain's Mind a Computer Program?, the answer is that we are much more than just a "biological computer."
In his article, Searle argues against the views of Artificial Intelligence (the view that minds are created by developing the right computer programs using the correct inputs and outputs) (Searle, pg. 26). This view basically believes that thinking is simply just the interpretation of symbols. However, Searle argues that in order to "guarantee cognition, perception, understanding, thinking and so forth" one must not only manipulate the symbols but also attach meaning to the symbols, something that computers cannot do (Searle, pg. 26). He uses an example to illustrate this argument well. He writes that he does not understand the Chinese language and is then placed in a room with a basket of Chinese symbols all of which he obviously does not understand. He then writes that in this room there is a rule book that provides instructions "identifying the symbols entirely by their shapes and does not require him to understand any of them" (Searle, pg. 26). Searle also states that in this example there are people outside the room who do understand Chinese in small groups of symbols. He then wants us the imagine that "the rule book is the 'computer program'. The people who wrote it are 'programmers,' and [he] is the 'computer.' The baskets full of symbols are the 'data base,' the small groups of symbols that are handed in to me are 'questions' and the bunches [he] hands out are the 'answers.'" (Searle, pg. 26). It is after setting up this example that Searle states that even though the answers he provides, via the help of the rule book and the people outside the room, are correct, he still does not actually know what the symbols mean because he has not attached meaning to them. Thus, cognition (a characteristic of the human brain) is not guaranteed through just the manipulation of symbols (a characteristic of computers).
As we can see through Searle's article our brains are much more than just "biological computers." Due to the fact that computers cannot attach meaning to the symbols that they manipulate there is no way to ensure that computers have cognitive abilities like humans do (Searle, pg. 26).
Citations:
Bor, Daniel. The Ravenous Brain: How the New Science of Consciousness Explains Our Insatiable Search for Meaning. New York: Basic Books, 2012. Print.
Searle, John R. "Is the Brain's Mind a Computer Program?" Scientific American (1990): 26-31. Print.
Though I'm not sure to what extent human consciousness can be replicated by computers, I believe that there is an element of individuality in consciousness that computers can never replicate.
ReplyDeleteHumans have the ability to interpret things differently. Computers are replicates, and to an extent, humans are not. Computers only have the ability to do what they are programmed to do. A computer cannot evolve on its own because it is incapable of original thought and therefore incapable of change.
As far as I'm concerned, computational modeling has only scratched the surface of recreating what the human brain can do. It is very well possible that computers will be able to replicate human consciousness in the future,but I believe that it is an ambitious project.
Reducing something that seems so unique is a bit disarming.
In Bohr's book, he mentions the set of joined twins that share senses. For instance, when one closed her eyes, she still mentally saw what the other twin had used her eyes to see. These were two people essentially operating on one brain.
With examples like this, the individuality of feelings comes into question. To what extent are the things we feel special or unique?
There is a great discrepancy between taking in information for the benefit of recalling it after several minutes, and taking in information during a long period of time to learn something. This is where we as humans differ from computers. Bor implies that "simple information-processing systems...are receiving only a faint trickle of information from their senses" and do not have a strong ability to process that information (112). Taking in information such as rules on identifying Chinese symbols simply by their shape may allow a person to recognize the symbols after several minutes. However, in order to understand the symbols and learn the significance, it is important to process every detail entirely, which means that there should be some kind of "decision process about which subset of ... the data is most deserving of further analysis, and which other subsets are best ignored" (112). If this is done, then the information is learned rather than simply taken in. This is how we as humans differ from a computer, which means humans are much, much more than a biological computer. Similarly, there are a great many tasks that a human brain is able to do, such as determining what the right thing to do is in certain situations and knowing which is the wrong thing.
ReplyDeleteMany people are raised to think that the brain is similar to a computer. Because of this, many people have this idea that the brain is made up of algorithms and just has an input output system. Not surprisingly, this comparison is what has been ingrained into my head since I was a child. It is refreshing to read a blog that sets the record straight. Although the brain is comparable to a computer, it is so much more and performs more efficiently. As you stated the brain has the ability to manipulate a scene and interpret a situation. We as humans can not only answer the question what, where, and how, but most importantly why. We are able to see the reasons behind a situation and not just the situation itself.
ReplyDeleteComputers has feelings?!
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to reflect on what makes us human in the sense of how we process and sort the information that we encounter on a daily basis. Although the differences between our DNA as a species is about 0.1%, on average we all have radically different identities. In an anthropology class that I am currently taking we explain this difference as the product of bioculture or the intimate relationship of how we are hardwired (i.e. how our brains are put together) and how those around us affect the way in which we approach the world we exist in. I believe that it is this relationship that Bohr was touching on, the "it" factor that makes us more than just machine and allows us to place meaning in the things we learn and not just store and recall information.
I think it would be kind of interesting to see how far computers will go after all "back in my day these things took 6 shelves to house the hardware and now this laptop and how it's all compact...wonderful". But seriously the ability for these things to communicate with each other and connect through the internet, the technology may not exist right now but maybe someday? I'm not sure how I feel about sharing something as personal as consciousness with something man-made but then again aren’t we all man made as well? Eh that's a bridge we will cross when we get there.
For me, I can understand why one would want to compare the brain to a computer. However, I think that analogy has its limits. Human brains are just fundamentally different that computers as Searle points out through example. The uniformity and sameness in all MacBook Pros is simply not there in the human brain. There’s variation from person to person. There’s an element of uniqueness. There’s an element of adaptability. This is just scratching the surface. I completely agree with both Bor and Searle in that there is something very special and unique about the human brain and that comparing it to computers just does not do it justice.
ReplyDelete