Are Humans 'Programmable'?

[Skepdick]

Predicting is one way of understanding when the subject of the study is time ordered.

ALL events you ever experience are time-ordered. You and your subjects are trapped by the arrow of time.

I think that that is information about different objects or subjects that it is stored in the brain rather than an algorithm.

Information processing IS computation! Processing information is what algorithms DO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_processing

Understaing, right or wrong, is a way making connections between the information about subjects and objects in the brain.

Making connections/relations between "objects" (however you identify/classify them) is what relational databases do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_algebra

Our understanding is the subject of constant investigation by conscious mind.

Ok, but you can't even define "mind", mean while I have an entire formal model and a science around it.
My model for mind is a Turing Machine, and the science is computer science for the trivial reason that it shares there properties:

* Turing Machines recognise and inter-communicate with languages. Just like minds.
* Turing machines process information. Just like minds.
* Turing machines are self-referential/recursive. Just like minds.

Conscious mind is presented by limited instance of experiences and it is through this experience that we eventually realize that our understanding is right or wrong. "Apple is orange" is a wrong statement. We either understand this through tasting them or we look at different linguistic references for each of them to realize that they are different.

OK, but you only understand that they are different because of their differences! And indeed, if you program yourself to associate the word "orange" with the taste, texture, color and appearance of the thing in the photo, then every time people talk about oranges in your presence, you will remember precisely the color, texture, flavour and taste of this thing.

orange.png (79.2 KiB) Viewed 1567 times

[Iwannaplato]

It's a model. Like all scientific models - it's eternally incomplete.

I am not sure it qualifies as a scientific model, even if some scientists may use it. But I was responding to the exchange:

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 7:35 am
bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 7:31 am
I think his objection is valid. He doesn't think that the brain is a hardware that can be programmed like a computer.
Which is the same thing as saying "He doesn't think the brain can learn"

And that's absurd.

It is not the same thing as saying he doesn't think the brain doesn't learn. Hence I said they are not synonyms since you drew a conclusion and presented it with certainty. It would be absurd to say we are not programmed like computers and this MUSt mean one cannot learn, then.

And we should note that so far computers are much simpler than brains.

Simplicity/complexity is quantifiable in complexity theory.

If the brain is seen as a mesh/network of interconnected parts, the "most complex" it can be is Factorial complexity.

Full mesh inter-connection between all neurons. And we know it's not THAT complex.

Of course it ain't just neurons. Glial cells are involved in processing not just as structural glue. So right off we have two different systems were together but at different speed and in different ways. And that was fairly recently discovered. There is nothing as complicated as brains and we don't know for sure how it works yet.

Oh, but we do! When we teach children OR adults it works best when you teach them in the language that THEY understand, not in the language that YOU understand.

Sure, though that's another issue.

So the first part of teaching AND programming is: learn their language.

I have been demonstrating this mode of persuasion on this forum for a while...

Programming, if correct in the grammar and vocabulary and order of computer will work, period, barring hardware problems. Not so with a child, let alone children. It sets in motion a causal chain not dependent on how the computer is feeling, what happened this morning, how much sleep the computer gets, who I remind the computer of, what happened with other computers, the computer's experience with other programmers

and man I could go on for hours with more categories.

Also while human brains are more tabula rasa than other mammalian brains, children come into the world with all sorts of individual temperments and tendencies which affect how 'programming' is received or not, used, interpreted etc.

And when I am not programming, those tendencies are leading to programming from EVERYTHING the child can sense, directly after birth. All the non-verbal 'programming' to use your metaphor which I do not think is appropriate. Now, yes computers now are being created to learn from experience in more complicated ways, but they are bicycles compared to a space shuttle or worse. We being the space shuttle in my analogy. that is, much more complicated and we don't even know how complicated yet.

Now with AI they are starting to get into processes that are more like learning/teaching, but then, it's not just programming anymore.

I suspect what you are referring to is reinforcement learning models. In so far as that's "learning" of any sort - it's about learning how to classify things.

How to put things in the "correct" category. This is roughly what babies learn when we ask them to put the round thing in the round hole, and the square thing in the square hole...

It's pattern matching.

Fine, but my objection stands. It's not programming and children learn things like that with no outside programming. They learn language to an enormous degree on their own. We do not program them to speak, though parents and teachers help. they get fluent to an enormous degree on their own.

Oh well, if the reductionism bothers you

IN the context of the exchange I responded to. If someone has used the metaphor as a useful on for certain types of conclusion, well, fine. But the response to someone having an objection to the equating of programming and learning was utterly binary and presented as one it is absurd to disagree with. In that context the reductionism is problematic.

then I'll side-step the objection by pointing out that quantum physics is computational. So the universe is one giant information system. A computer. And we live in the Matrix!

In that reference frame your objection amounts to "What am I? And no, I am not a computer!!!". Your brain behaves like a computer and that's a useful model.

Who's the programmer for the universe?

[Skepdick]

I am not sure it qualifies as a scientific model, even if some scientists may use it.

Isn't that the criterion for all scientific models? Utility.

Hence I said they are not synonyms since you drew a conclusion and presented it with certainty.

I am not arguing semantics though - I am pointing out how they are functionally identical for the purposes of preduction.

It would be absurd to say we are not programmed like computers and this MUSt mean one cannot learn, then.

If it's absurd then don't say it.

Of course it ain't just neurons. Glial cells are involved in processing not just as structural glue.

Whatever the resolution of your ontology, it's not as complex as factorial interconnection.

So right off we have two different systems...

Observe you are using the language of systems.... Welcome back to the land of computation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system

were together but at different speed and in different ways. And that was fairly recently discovered. There is nothing as complicated as brains and we don't know for sure how it works yet.

Obviously. That's what it means for a model to be incomplete.

Furthermore observe what you are DOING.

You are using your brain to understand your brain. That's self-application/recursion.

Welcome back to the land of computation.

Programming, if correct in the grammar and vocabulary and order of computer will work, period, barring hardware problems. Not so with a child, let alone children.

Then the conclusion is obvious!!!

You aren't using the "correct" grammar and vocabulary for your programming to work. You don't understand that child's language.

Which is exactly what I said!

It sets in motion a causal chain not dependent on how the computer is feeling, what happened this morning, how much sleep the computer gets, who I remind the computer of, what happened with other computers, the computer's experience with other programmers

Yeah! Computers can behave non-deterministically at runtime! I don't understand why the computer is throwing a tantrum because I don't understand what happened to it in the last 24 hours to get into that state.

That's what debugging is for! To arrive at the precise sequence of events which caused the observed behaviour.

and man I could go on for hours with more categories.

And I could go on for hours mapping them to computational concepts.

Also while human brains are more tabula rasa than other mammalian brains, children come into the world with all sorts of individual temperments and tendencies which affect how 'programming' is received or not, used, interpreted etc.

Yep! Different hardware is different. Making "the same" software run on different hardware is called porting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porting

You can think of "Porting" as "translating your ideas in a language the other person can understand"

Now, yes computers now are being created to learn from experience in more complicated ways, but they are bicycles compared to a space shuttle or worse. We being the space shuttle in my analogy. that is, much more complicated and we don't even know how complicated yet.

To say that something is "much more complicated" is pretty vacuous.

I can see that it's "much more complicated" than the vocabulary I have to talk about it. Which is how I know I don't understand it.

The limits of my language are the limits of my world. --Wittgenstein

It's not programming and children learn things like that with no outside programming.

Except the programming they arrived with at birth, right? Else you are insisting that "learning how to classify things" is some sort of magic.

They learn language to an enormous degree on their own. We do not program them to speak, though parents and teachers help. they get fluent to an enormous degree on their own.

Yeah. Got a theory for that? How does "learning" work?

I have a computational model...

But the response to someone having an objection to the equating of programming and learning was utterly binary and presented as one it is absurd to disagree with. In that context the reductionism is problematic.

OK. Define the problem. It is half the solution.

Who's the programmer for the universe?

I don't know, but IF we live in a computer simulation then there is a programmer.

And just like that... Quantum Physics is compatible with the God idea...

[Iwannaplato]

I am not sure it qualifies as a scientific model, even if some scientists may use it.

There are models and MODELS. You have things that some scientists use but it is not especially rigorous or accepted widely. You also have models that are the model in a certain discipline.
[/quote]
Isn't that the criterion for all scientific models? Utility.[/quote]Sure, but there are degrees. Here we are in a philosophy forum where we can look at the level of accuracy of a metaphor or model. We are not, here, generating research, were utility is the focus. We are trying to look at whether assertions hold and to what degree, in which circumstances, etc.

I am not arguing semantics though - I am pointing out how they are functionally identical for the purposes of preduction.

OK, I disagree that they are functionally identical. That was part of the motivation for various assertions in my post.

It would be absurd to say we are not programmed like computers and this MUSt mean one cannot learn, then.

If it's absurd then don't say it.

Of course it ain't just neurons. Glial cells are involved in processing not just as structural glue.

Whatever the resolution of your ontology, it's not as complex as factorial interconnection.

It's more complex than any computer. I don't know anything about factorial interconnection. I am comparing computers and minds, also learning and being programmed. For example there need be no programmer for an incredible amount of human learning. We learn much more outside of conscious teaching then we do from teaching.

So right off we have two different systems...

Observe you are using the language of systems.... Welcome back to the land of computation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system

Observe that's an old, long before computers word from Greek.

Obviously. That's what it means for a model to be incomplete.

Fine, but again. I was responding to saying that if you thinking programming is not the same as learning, then you think people cannot learn.

Furthermore observe what you are DOING.

You are using your brain to understand your brain. That's self-application/recursion.

Welcome back to the land of computation.

You've got the cart before the horse. Just because we have managed to make things that do things that we do does not mean that therefore brains are computers.

Horses are bicycles because we can travel on them. Just because things that come after do things that things that were there before does not mean those things that came before ARE those things that came after. Dolls aren't humans.

Oh, you talk to a doll, you have a doll family. See, humans are dolls.

Programming, if correct in the grammar and vocabulary and order of computer will work, period, barring hardware problems. Not so with a child, let alone children.

You aren't using the "correct" grammar and vocabulary for your programming to work. You don't understand that child's language.

If you look later I talk about how vastly more complex learning is and depends on NONPROGRAMMED learning.

It sets in motion a causal chain not dependent on how the computer is feeling, what happened this morning, how much sleep the computer gets, who I remind the computer of, what happened with other computers, the computer's experience with other programmers

Yeah! Computers can behave non-deterministically at runtime! I don't understand why the computer is throwing a tantrum because I don't understand what happened to it in the last 24 hours to get into that state.

That's what debugging is for! To arrive at the precise sequence of events which caused the observed behaviour.

If you solve the problem with programming, then your model fits. If the problem was caused by non-programming issues and!!!!!!!!!!! non-programmed learning, then your model does not hold. And most of our learning is not language based. It is not language based.

and man I could go on for hours with more categories.

And I could go on for hours mapping them to computational concepts.

with false generalizations.

Yep! Different hardware is different. Making "the same" software run on different hardware is called porting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porting

You can think of "Porting" as "translating your ideas in a language the other person can understand"

though this does not take into account all the non-verbal learning (by that I mean any experiencing) that a child goes through.

What you seem to me to be doing is showing that you are happy to model the same way over and over and come up with metaphors from computing for human behavior and processes. I know you have that tendency already. Are they actually covering the same ground and well? that's up in the air.

You have a six month child, one day my programming does not function well. There is nothing at all remotely comparable to the child is autistic. Or the other parent is sexually abusing the child. Or the child has syaesthesia. Or the child is an impatient child. Or that has gone through a hormonal change in its development. Or has through some developmental shift started to focus more on sounds then images - and not through anything I programmed or the child's teachers and not through any language interactions with that child. Now you may be able to come up with something that we can create a metaphor out of when dealing with computers that somehow connects with it, but in the real world there is nothing remotely as important as these things in the computer world and it would be facile to make the comparison. Maybe someday when computers have strong experiential learning and strong developmental processes - something that is like puberty (and pain, sexuality, pleasure and all the subtle processes that leads to piaget type changes/stages/foci) - then the model will be stronger.

IOW once we have reverse engineered ourselves and then created from that much better than we have so far and certain qualitative thresholds have been passed. And IOW one step further these things we are trying to make like ourselves (but with vastly more calculating powers) have reached a level where their learning is like our learning in all ways NOT just those that are like programming.

To say that something is "much more complicated" is pretty vacuous.

It's vague but not vacuous. And here we have machines that learn in some of the ways we do and those ways can be analogous in us to programming, but we are more complicated and learn in ways that are not like programming and do not involve language. We are more complicated in the ways we learn (and develop our hardware) and this means that programming and human learning are not the same. So, it can be useful to use the model/analogy but in a philosophy forum one can disagree with their utter equivalence without being absurd. Whereas, sure, if I went to a lab and told some AI guys that using the model was dumb would be absurd.

I can see that it's "much more complicated" than the vocabulary I have to talk about it. Which is how I know I don't understand it.

The limits of my language are the limits of my world. --Wittgenstein

No mine. There are lots of things I have no words for that I experience. I might be able to point in the direction at best with words. And it is certainly not the case for babies who are learning incredibly. The limits of their language is NOT the limits of their world. And that points to there being a difference between programming and human learning.

Except the programming they arrived with at birth, right? Else you are insisting that "learning how to classify things" is some sort of magic.

I wouldn't call it programming. That's using something less to describe something more. If you created a new word, that was larger than programming to cover things like genetic communication, experiential learning AND programming, and also included the changes via development

OK, I am happy with that word. But when you keep using programming to cover things that are not programming and that no programmer on earth is remotely capable of doing, I think you are misusing the word.

We could call it writing or communicating too.

I have a computational model...

Sure, I really did get that, that's the issue.


I don't know, but IF we live in a computer simulation then there is a programmer.[/quote]One level up, at least. But with the programming model there is a programmer. That's an enormous difference. Not a quantative one. If you presume one, well, ok. In fact then the model fits nicely with intelligent design. Intention is present. If not, then it is problematic not quantitatively, but qualitatively.

But if you add God into the mix, then the programming model becomes much better. Because then all my complaints about the inadequacy of programming can be taken care of. Since God, a vastly more talented programmer, using things that are prelingual to 'program' can be programming along with parents and teachers and the environment and pets and friends and artificial and natural things the child encounters.

Of course then there is no reason to use a verb made up for those language intructions used to get computers to do things we want them to do.

We could use a broader verb.

And I want to emphasize the context. Here in a philosophical forum, not an AI lab, saying learning is programming and dismissing an objection as absurd and saying the terms are same, period, is problematic. That it can be used to metaphorically describe much learning, fine. That one can stretch it to cover things never done by a human programmer, not remotely, and involving non-linguistic processes of learning , despite programmer using language, hm stretching and at the least a worthy discussion and disagreeing is not absurd. Obviously I think it is the stronger position. I think a word that covers a much more limited area, programming, is being used as a metaphor for something with processes not covered by programming, at least now. That can be very useful in certain contexts, but sure, get down in ontology and it is speculative at best and works potentially only as a kind of theism or at least a 13th floor type simulated universe model.

How do we program for consciousness, pain, pleasure, desire?

'Things' deeply embroiled with learning in us. Oh, sure, maybe some day, those can be programmed by some programmer. Or maybe not.

But I think someone disagreeing now, before all that, has some grounds to say programming and learning are not the same. Or that brains are not computers (only at least, though really at all since computers are things now we are trying to make like brains but haven't succeeded in many core categories.)

[Skepdick]

There are models and MODELS. You have things that some scientists use but it is not especially rigorous or accepted widely. You also have models that are the model in a certain discipline.

OK. But you are vaguely implying that some models are "better" than others without so much as saying what your selection criteria are.
You aren't in any way addressing the concerns of the model-dependent realists/

There are models, and there are MODELS and they are observationally equivalent so... where to from here?

Sure, but there are degrees.

Degrees of?

Here we are in a philosophy forum where we can look at the level of accuracy of a metaphor or model.

OK, so how do you quantify/assess the "accuracy" of a model? If two models are observationally equivalent then which one is "better"?

We are not, here, generating research, were utility is the focus. We are trying to look at whether assertions hold and to what degree, in which circumstances, etc.

You are still making assertions. About models. So what standards for "holding" and "circumstantiality" are you implicitly referring to?

But I could trivially ask the exact same question about Philosophy. In what context does philosophy no longer hold?

OK, I disagree that they are functionally identical. That was part of the motivation for various assertions in my post.

OK. To make that claim you must have a better model? Furnish it.

It's more complex than any computer.

Then it must be more complex than the universe, but that's impossible.

The universe is a computer. The brain is a subset of the universe. Therefore the brain is necessarily less complex than the universe.

I don't know anything about factorial interconnection.

I do know which is why I am saying "more interconnection means more complexity"

I am comparing computers and minds, also learning and being programmed. For example there need be no programmer for an incredible amount of human learning.

Sure! The same applies to computers. We call it unsupervised learning. Because the computer learns on its own (unsupervised)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsupervised_learning

We learn much more outside of conscious teaching then we do from teaching.

We know that. Which is why computer scientists ultimately prefer unsupervised learning to supervised learning.

It's necessary to get us closer to AI.

Observe that's an old, long before computers word from Greek.

That's impossible. Computers existed long before the Greeks. Even the Babylonians understood computation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_ ... scription)

Fine, but again. I was responding to saying that if you thinking programming is not the same as learning, then you think people cannot learn.

For the computer programming is only one way of learning. The "supervised" kind. So in that sense programming is closer to teaching, but teaching involves an element of learning - learning how to communicate with your student.

You've got the cart before the horse. Just because we have managed to make things that do things that we do does not mean that therefore brains are computers.

I didn't say that. I said understanding the thing that understands using the thing that understands (your brain) is recursive.

Recursion is computation. Brains compute therefore they are computers. Verbs/gerunds, not nouns.

Horses are bicycles because we can travel on them.

Nouns and verbs... Computation is a verb. Compute/to compute is a verb.

To horse and to bicycle is not a verb. To transport is a verb.

Just because things that come after do things that things that were there before does not mean those things that came before ARE those things that came after. Dolls aren't humans.

The confusion is all yours. What things ARE is ontology - philosophical hogwash.

What things DO is not - it's science. System dynamics.

There is no way to ever understand what an electron IS except by understanding its Mathematical behaviour.

Beneath any "ontology" stands only Mathematics. And Mathematics is epistemology.

If you look later I talk about how vastly more complex learning is and depends on NONPROGRAMMED learning.

You keep insinuating that learning is "more complicated" without making any testable predictions...

You aren't saying anything but "Your model is incomplete... there is more".

I know! Are you going to fill in the blanks or are you just going to keep screaming at the gap?

If you solve the problem with programming, then your model fits. If the problem was caused by non-programming issues and!!!!!!!!!!! non-programmed learning, then your model does not hold.

That's an incoherent standard. If I can solve the problem then the model fits. Irrespective of the root cause.

In medicine you don't always have to address root causes. As long as you prevent system failure SOMEHOW you've "solved the problem".

And most of our learning is not language based. It is not language based.

Sure. That's what computer vision + unsupervised learning is for.

with false generalizations.

Are Skepdick's generalizations false?
"Yes", decided Iwannaplato.

Welcome back to Computer Science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem

though this does not take into account all the non-verbal learning (by that I mean any experiencing) that a child goes through.

It does. You can copy machine learning models across systems. We use quantum computers to optimise classical algorithms.

The resulting executable (the knowledge) can be transferred between computers, but not always understood by humans in its Mathematical form.

What you seem to me to be doing is showing that you are happy to model the same way over and over and come up with metaphors from computing for human behavior and processes.

I am. And it works. Science!

You have a six month child, one day my programming does not function well. There is nothing at all remotely comparable to the child is autistic.

Pffft! All computers are autistic! They require uncanny level of precision when instructing them what to do. They are unforgiving and utterly demanding while being taught to behave.

My experience of herding computers and herding children is not very different. Both require patience and observation and understanding.

Or the other parent is sexually abusing the child. Or the child has syaesthesia. Or the child is an impatient child. Or that has gone through a hormonal change in its development. Or has through some developmental shift started to focus more on sounds then images - and not through anything I programmed or the child's teachers and not through any language interactions with that child. Now you may be able to come up with something that we can create a metaphor out of when dealing with computers that somehow connects with it, but in the real world there is nothing remotely as important as these things in the computer world and it would be facile to make the comparison. Maybe someday when computers have strong experiential learning and strong developmental processes - something that is like puberty (and pain, sexuality, pleasure and all the subtle processes that leads to piaget type changes/stages/foci) - then the model will be stronger.

And? What is your point? It's complex - yes. Anything that resembles "knowledge" or "understanding" of the situation is still systematically acquired by you. Using your "computer" (brain).

IOW once we have reverse engineered ourselves and then created from that much better than we have so far and certain qualitative thresholds have been passed.

What standard for "betterness" are you appealing to? In so far as computers learn from us - they'll do much the same things like humans do.

And IOW one step further these things we are trying to make like ourselves (but with vastly more calculating powers) have reached a level where their learning is like our learning in all ways NOT just those that are like programming.

They are already better than us at games with complete information. Chess. Go. Alpha Zero can learn any game with rules.

In fact, Alpha Zero didn't get taught to play chess. It got given the rules of chess. and it taught itself how to play chess. Given the rules.

It's vague but not vacuous.

What's the difference between vagueness and vacuousness if you aren't expanding the gaps of the model?

And here we have machines that learn in some of the ways we do and those ways can be analogous in us to programming, but we are more complicated and learn in ways that are not like programming and do not involve language.

Yeah and I am nothing like you. And you are nothing like your neighbour. And we are all different, man! Because our experiences were different.

But you aren't saying anything...

We are more complicated in the ways we learn (and develop our hardware) and this means that programming and human learning are not the same. So, it can be useful to use the model/analogy but in a philosophy forum one can disagree with their utter equivalence without being absurd. Whereas, sure, if I went to a lab and told some AI guys that using the model was dumb would be absurd.

Obviously. That's why it's just a model. But it's worthless telling me that X and Y are different if you aren't going to explain how those differences work.

No mine. There are lots of things I have no words for that I experience.

I experience everything that I experience. Most of it is probably everything that you experience too.

Most of it I don't understand in any sensible notion of "understanding".

I might be able to point in the direction at best with words. And it is certainly not the case for babies who are learning incredibly. The limits of their language is NOT the limits of their world.

OK, lets try then... What do you mean by "experience" and "world"? Tell me about them...

And that points to there being a difference between programming and human learning.

OK, but that's just sophistry. There is a difference between X and X. They have different spacetime coordinates.

There's a difference between any two things. That's why there's TWO of them.

I wouldn't call it programming. That's using something less to describe something more. If you created a new word, that was larger than programming to cover things like genetic communication, experiential learning AND programming, and also included the changes via development

If the universe is a computer, the word "programming" is larger than all of those things.

OK, I am happy with that word. But when you keep using programming to cover things that are not programming and that no programmer on earth is remotely capable of doing, I think you are misusing the word.

You don't get to decide how I use language without appealing to some moral vs immoral use of language.

Language is a tool. I use this tool towards my goals. If you don't like how I use the tool - It's entirely your problem.

We could call it writing or communicating too.

"Communicating" is what I am calling it.

Information Theory is otherwise known as The Mathematical theory of Communication.

One level up, at least. But with the programming model there is a programmer.

Or down. Directionality is relative. They are "further back" in time. The past is "down" the future is "up".

That's an enormous difference. Not a quantative one.

Is there an enormous difference? Yes, decided Iwannaplato.

Welcome back to Computer Science.

If you presume one, well, ok. In fact then the model fits nicely with intelligent design. Intention is present. If not, then it is problematic not quantitatively, but qualitatively.

Then you need to qualify the problem.

But if you add God into the mix, then the programming model becomes much better.

You don't have to add God. Just about everything we know about DNA is computational/informational.

Bioinformatics. Your DNA is some of your "programming".

Because then all my complaints about the inadequacy of programming can be taken care of. Since God, a vastly more talented programmer, using things that are prelingual to 'program' can be programming along with parents and teachers and the environment and pets and friends and artificial and natural things the child encounters.

Of course then there is no reason to use a verb made up for those language intructions used to get computers to do things we want them to do.

We could use a broader verb.

I am using the broadest verb possible. Computation.

The manipulation of matter.

[Skepdick]

But I think someone disagreeing now, before all that, has some grounds to say programming and learning are not the same.

Yeah, in the hand-wavey sense you can totally disagree. But then again you can disagree about anything and everything.

You can start with the premise that all experiences are the same, except for their differences; or
you can start with the premise that all experiences are different, except for their sameness.

Ultimately now is different from now, because every moment is different. Except for all the ways in which it isn't.

That's largely Philosopher's gig isn't it? Using a lot of words to express experience. Whatever you SAY about experience it's never enough. Because language is forever incomplete.

Or that brains are not computers (only at least, though really at all since computers are things now we are trying to make like brains but haven't succeeded in many core categories.)

Much irony here. Inventing categories and placing observations into them is what brains DO. Categorisation is a process, otherwise know as Classification. It's not a terrible idea to ponder why that is. Why do we categorise?


If our small minds, for some convenience, divide this glass of wine, this universe, into parts — physics, biology, geology, astronomy, psychology, and so on — remember that nature does not know it! --Richard Feynman

[jayjacobus]

Minds are not programmable but they can be influenced.

This means that a mind cannot be programmed step by step but can be convinced by propaganda, advertisements, threats, laws, emotions, wants and more.

Moreover the characteristics of different humans, have a determining effect on how easily they can be influenced. As an example a powerful person is harder to influence than a powerless person. But in an election, the powerful person does not get more votes than anyone else. So situations also have an effect.

[bahman]

Predicting is one way of understanding when the subject of the study is time ordered.

ALL events you ever experience are time-ordered.

Some of the events are truth which is constant because they explain the subject matter well, like a mature and good apple is sweet.

You and your subjects are trapped by the arrow of time.

I am not trapped because I am free. The subjects of my thoughts are trapped in my mind. They eventually will be resolved.

I think that that is information about different objects or subjects that it is stored in the brain rather than an algorithm.

Information processing IS computation!

Yes. The way that computation is done in a computer is however different from the one in the brain. We are sure about the existence of a conscious mind which does the comparison between two things at any given time to make sure that they are different or not. Let's call this the comparison process (CP). That is the basic process. All complicated tasks can be reduced to CP where the subject of comparison could be complicated stuff.

Processing information is what algorithms DO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_processing

Yes. That is what the subconscious mind is an expert on. The conscious mind mostly works with a short algorithm that is based on CP.

Understanding, right or wrong, is a way of making connections between the information about subjects and objects in the brain.

Making connections/relations between "objects" (however you identify/classify them) is what relational databases do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_algebra

That is what the mind does. The conscious and subconscious mind however have access to different data. I don't know how reality looks like from a subconscious point of view.

Our understanding is the subject of constant investigation by conscious mind.

Ok, but you can't even define "mind", mean while I have an entire formal model and a science around it.
My model for mind is a Turing Machine, and the science is computer science for the trivial reason that it shares there properties:

* Turing Machines recognise and inter-communicate with languages. Just like minds.
* Turing machines process information. Just like minds.
* Turing machines are self-referential/recursive. Just like minds.

By mind, I mean a substance that experience, decides and causes. The act of decision is basically CP.

Conscious mind is presented by limited instance of experiences and it is through this experience that we eventually realize that our understanding is right or wrong. "Apple is orange" is a wrong statement. We either understand this through tasting them or we look at different linguistic references for each of them to realize that they are different.

OK, but you only understand that they are different because of their differences! And indeed, if you program yourself to associate the word "orange" with the taste, texture, color and appearance of the thing in the photo, then every time people talk about oranges in your presence, you will remember precisely the color, texture, flavour and taste of this thing.

orange.png

True.

[psycho]

I did not state a program is exclusively comprised of conditional statements, however the majority of operations within a program involved conditionals of "if X, do Y, else Z" where the core of the program is 'if objective met, do Y, if not repeat Z"
Obviously a program need an objective, else it will never end.
Besides the above there are other elements that are necessary for the program to work.

Conditionals or any number of operators do not indicate the existence of a program.

The objective of a program is not the end of its routine but to fulfill the task proposed by the programmer.

You have a weird understanding of what is a program and programming.

Here are the various meanings of 'program'
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/program?s=t
a plan of action to accomplish a specified end:
..a school lunch program.
a plan or schedule of activities, procedures, etc., to be followed.
...a broadcasted television or radio production or similar internet-based content produced for distribution.
a list of items, pieces, performers, etc., in a musical, theatrical, or other entertainment.
...an entertainment with reference to its pieces or numbers: a program of American and French music.
a planned, coordinated group of activities, procedures, etc., often for a specific purpose, or a facility offering such a series of activities:
..a drug rehabilitation program; a graduate program in linguistics.
a prospectus or syllabus:
..a program of courses being offered.
Also called com·put·er pro·gram .Digital Technology. a precise sequence of instructions enabling a computer to perform a task; a piece of software.
What is most appropriate for this discussion would be this meaning of 'what is program', i.e.

All these examples are contained in the concept "A program is a set of directives that seeks a certain objective."

Let say, any profession sport person would have an objective to win in sport competition.
As such he would need to adopt a program to achieve his objective within his sport.
In carrying out his program, he is "programming" his muscles and brain with the hope that he will achieve his intended objectives.
Why is this not human programming?

In the case of brainwashing, a person is deliberately programmed ideologically to align his thinking and actions to the objective of the "brainwasher" is in politics, cults, and other social groups.
Why is this not human programming?

Where you have an objective to give up bad habits and addiction, e.g. smoking, drugs, sex, etc. you will need to reprogram your brain by rewiring your neural connections to achieve your objectives.
Why is this not human programming?

In all the above cases, there are inputs of data into the brain to initial actions and data will be obtained from outputs to check against conditions.
So why are the above not human programming?

The athlete does not program his muscles !!!

Following a program is NOT programming.

He may have created the program (the list of directives) and then followed the program (doing the exercises).

It is not correct to consider that one is programming oneself when one executes any list of directives.

Say:

- "I programmed a certain amount of tasks for the rest of the week"

It does not have the same meaning as:

- "I programmed the computer with a racing game"

The concept is different. You would never use them interchangeably.

The directives of the first case can be disregarded by the supposedly programmed entity.

The directives of the second case are not reconsiderable by the programmed entity.

Ordering someone to complete a task is not programming that person.

[Impenitent]

humans are creatures of habit

(the athlete does train his muscles... ever studied a martial art?)

-Imp

[Veritas Aequitas]

Persuasion is programming.
To ask "are humans programmable" is to ask "are humans persuadable?"

Yes, through teaching. A part of it is genetic too.

Agree with the above.

Wonder why Pyscho cannot get it?

I think his objection is valid. He doesn't think that the brain is a hardware that can be programmed like a computer.

The he is too dogmatic on the modern meaning of 'program' in relation to computer which is relatively a new invention of human kind,

Here are the various meanings of 'program'
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/program?s=t

Note the various meanings of program all [except one] are not related to computer programs.

• a plan of action to accomplish a specified end:
  ..a school lunch program.
  a plan or schedule of activities, procedures, etc., to be followed.
  ...a broadcasted television or radio production or similar internet-based content produced for distribution.
  a list of items, pieces, performers, etc., in a musical, theatrical, or other entertainment.
  ...an entertainment with reference to its pieces or numbers: a program of American and French music.
  a planned, coordinated group of activities, procedures, etc., often for a specific purpose, or a facility offering such a series of activities:
  ..a drug rehabilitation program; a graduate program in linguistics.
  a prospectus or syllabus:
  ..a program of courses being offered.
  Also called com·put·er pro·gram .Digital Technology. a precise sequence of instructions enabling a computer to perform a task; a piece of software.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I think his objection is valid. He doesn't think that the brain is a hardware that can be programmed like a computer.

Which is the same thing as saying "He doesn't think the brain can learn"
And that's absurd.

No that is not the same.

I don't think programming and learning are utter synonyms. And we should note that so far computers are much simpler than brains. Further when we teach children or adults we do not engage in the same processes as programmers. Now with AI they are starting to get into processes that are more like learning/teaching, but then, it's not just programming anymore.

To treat brains as mere hardware is to reduce them. It's a metaphor. It might be a useful one sometimes. But if you want to make a general claim, it fails because brains are not (just, remotely) the same as computer hardware.

That computers can learn is because they had been programmed to do so.

[bahman]

Agree with the above.

Wonder why Pyscho cannot get it?

I think his objection is valid. He doesn't think that the brain is a hardware that can be programmed like a computer.

The he is too dogmatic on the modern meaning of 'program' in relation to computer which is relatively a new invention of human kind,

Here are the various meanings of 'program'
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/program?s=t

Note the various meanings of program all [except one] are not related to computer programs.

• a plan of action to accomplish a specified end:
  ..a school lunch program.
  a plan or schedule of activities, procedures, etc., to be followed.
  ...a broadcasted television or radio production or similar internet-based content produced for distribution.
  a list of items, pieces, performers, etc., in a musical, theatrical, or other entertainment.
  ...an entertainment with reference to its pieces or numbers: a program of American and French music.
  a planned, coordinated group of activities, procedures, etc., often for a specific purpose, or a facility offering such a series of activities:
  ..a drug rehabilitation program; a graduate program in linguistics.
  a prospectus or syllabus:
  ..a program of courses being offered.
  Also called com·put·er pro·gram .Digital Technology. a precise sequence of instructions enabling a computer to perform a task; a piece of software.

I see.

[bahman]

Which is the same thing as saying "He doesn't think the brain can learn"
And that's absurd.

No that is not the same.

I don't think programming and learning are utter synonyms. And we should note that so far computers are much simpler than brains. Further when we teach children or adults we do not engage in the same processes as programmers. Now with AI they are starting to get into processes that are more like learning/teaching, but then, it's not just programming anymore.

To treat brains as mere hardware is to reduce them. It's a metaphor. It might be a useful one sometimes. But if you want to make a general claim, it fails because brains are not (just, remotely) the same as computer hardware.

That computers can learn is because they had been programmed to do so.

You can simulate a complex neural net, something which works similar to a brain, using the computer.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Conditionals or any number of operators do not indicate the existence of a program.
The objective of a program is not the end of its routine but to fulfill the task proposed by the programmer.

I have already stated, a program is not exclusively and explicitly comprised of conditional statement.
The objective of a program can be the end of its processes but not in all cases, where the activities are still maintained.

All these examples are contained in the concept "A program is a set of directives that seeks a certain objective."

So we agree on this.

Let say, any profession sport person would have an objective to win in sport competition.
As such he would need to adopt a program to achieve his objective within his sport.
In carrying out his program, he is "programming" his muscles and brain with the hope that he will achieve his intended objectives.
Why is this not human programming?

In the case of brainwashing, a person is deliberately programmed ideologically to align his thinking and actions to the objective of the "brainwasher" is in politics, cults, and other social groups.
Why is this not human programming?

Where you have an objective to give up bad habits and addiction, e.g. smoking, drugs, sex, etc. you will need to reprogram your brain by rewiring your neural connections to achieve your objectives.
Why is this not human programming?

In all the above cases, there are inputs of data into the brain to initial actions and data will be obtained from outputs to check against conditions.
So why are the above not human programming?

The athlete does not program his muscles !!!

Following a program is NOT programming.

He may have created the program (the list of directives) and then followed the program (doing the exercises).

It is not correct to consider that one is programming oneself when one executes any list of directives.

Say:

- "I programmed a certain amount of tasks for the rest of the week"

It does not have the same meaning as:

- "I programmed the computer with a racing game"

The concept is different. You would never use them interchangeably.

The directives of the first case can be disregarded by the supposedly programmed entity.

The directives of the second case are not reconsiderable by the programmed entity.

Ordering someone to complete a task is not programming that person.
[/quote]
Note the meaning of 'programming'

• https://www.dictionary.com/browse/programming?s=t
  Programming = the act or process of planning or writing a program.
  e.g. the selection and scheduling of programs for transmission, as for a television station or network, or an internet-based digital distributor.
  the programs scheduled.
  
  ORIGIN OF PROGRAMMING
  First recorded in 1885–90; program + -ing

Btw, are you aware of the philosophical Principle of Charity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

Originally I wrote,
"All humans are "programmed" with a potential 'program' of XYZ via evolution. That is literally 'programming' albeit not used commonly.
The activation of the program is carried out spontaneously.

The term "human programming" [About 82,100 results (0.48 seconds) ] would mean the set-up of the program with its intended objective and set of activities and carrying out the processes simultaneously.