"Your brain is not a computer" article.

[lmfao]

An interesting article I found, which states that conceptualising the human brain in strict terms to that of a computer would be a mistake despite how popular it is https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer

Ofc the article offers very little in terms of an alternative scientific model, but thats fine. It is what it is. 

 

Edited March 14, 2019 by lmfao

[Highest]

The brain and matter is an illusion, meaning it isn't what it appears to be. 

 

So no point reading that article for me at least 

Edited March 14, 2019 by Highest

[DnoReally]

@Highest Very very good point. You're a very open-minded individual, exactly what we all aspire to be here. 

The brain's an illusion duh? Hasn't this guy seen Leos video?

[Shadowraix]

This article is taking the comparison way too literally.

This article sounds like the guy is deathly afraid of being compared to a computer, often because we often try to see ourselves as something beyond that.

The article basically just explains that it doesn't process or store information in the same way as the brain. Which is true, but that doesn't make the computer analogy really any less of a point to make.

When you dig into your own psychology you discover how you've functioned your entire life is equivalent to a self-programmable AI. Comes with an initial directive, can take in information, and modify and adapt its own directive. There was a post on here sometime ago that eloquently broke down the programming and meta-programming of the mind and its programs.

 

55 minutes ago, Highest said:

The brain and matter is an illusion, meaning it isn't what it appears to be. 

Don't get so caught up in the absolute you lose sight of the relative. Keep your mind on the stars and your eyes to your feet. Don't trip.

[Forestluv]

I like this article in the sense that it challenges the dogmatic materialist view. At the collective conscious level, we are waaay too shifted toward the materialist view of cognition. Yet I see two main problems with this article. 1. It tries to use materialism to refute materialism. Aint gonna happen. Neuroscience is much more advanced within the material realm than armchair philosophers. It would be like me stepping into a ring with a black belt karate master. I don't know karate and my "spin moves" would look absolutely ridiculous. I would fall over. 

For example, the author tried to center his argument around an exercise he does with children. The child is asked to draw a dollar bill on the board and he draws a basic outline of a dollar bill. The teacher then tapes an actual dollar bill to the board and asks the child to draw another dollar bill. Of course, the child draws a much more detailed dollar bill. The author then concludes the brain is not like a computer because the child could not draw a detailed dollar bill without the picture. Noone is saying the brain IS a photographic camera or that the brain IS an actual computer. The analogy is that the brain is similar to a computer.

He goes on to state:

"A thousand years of neuroscience will never locate a representation of a dollar bill stored inside the human brain for the simple reason that it is not there to be found. The idea that memories are stored in individual neurons is preposterous: how and where is the memory stored in the cell?"

He says scientists will never locate and actual representation of a dollar bill in the brain. First off, they might. There may be a physical thing in the brain representative of a dollar bill, who knows? He is using an argument from ignorance fallacy. People do this in religion all the time. Just because something is not detected and cannot be imagined by a mind does not mean it doesn't exist. 1,000 years is a looong time and our understanding of brain activity will be MUCH more advanced to the point we can't even imagine today. . .  His second statement is wrong. We know that memories are correlated to the hippocampus. When a person is recalling memories, the hippocampus becomes active. When the hippocampus is inactivated, no memories arise. Perhaps "storage" is not the right word because it suggests a physical item being stored. Yet, there is clearly some type of association between the material hippocampus and the (likely) immaterial memory.

There is plenty of research of computers decoding brain activity back into images. For example, people can watch a movie and a computer can decode brain activity back into the images of the movie. This is one form of a computer decoding a different language of another type of computer brain.

There is an integration of the immaterial and material into holism. Taking one side or the other is a major block against deeper understanding. I think it is a big mistake to have a dualistic view and say the brain is either immaterial or material. It is both and neither. The immaterial is material and vice-versa. Once we get into this mindset, our progress and understanding will skyrocket. 

In terms of opposition to the materialist view, a much stronger argument resides in metaphysical realms. That is, nonduality. The brain resides in One nondual consciousness. Consciousness does not arise from a physical brain. The physical brain resides in consciousness. Yet again, this is a dualistic view of nonduality vs. duality. The deepest levels of understanding will integrate the two.

 

 

 

[Highest]

16 minutes ago, DnoReally said:

@Highest Very very good point. You're a very open-minded individual, exactly what we all aspire to be here. 

The brain's an illusion duh? Hasn't this guy seen Leos video?

 

17 minutes ago, DnoReally said:

@Highest Very very good point. You're a very open-minded individual, exactly what we all aspire to be here. 

The brain's an illusion duh? Hasn't this guy seen Leos video?

Thank you. But it doesn't help to watch Leo's video only. You have to see and understand that it is an illusion, become conscious of it. 

[Highest]

@Shadowraix I do both, don't worry bro ?

[zambize]

20 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

I like this article in the sense that it challenges the dogmatic materialist view. At the collective conscious level, we are waaay too shifted toward the materialist view of cognition. Yet I see two main problems with this article. 1. It tries to use materialism to refute materialism. Aint gonna happen. Neuroscience is much more advanced within the material realm than armchair philosophers. It would be like me stepping into a ring with a black belt karate master. I don't know karate and my "spin moves" would look absolutely ridiculous. I would fall over. 

For example, the author tried to center his argument around an exercise he does with children. The child is asked to draw a dollar bill on the board and he draws a basic outline of a dollar bill. The teacher then tapes an actual dollar bill to the board and asks the child to draw another dollar bill. Of course, the child draws a much more detailed dollar bill. The author then concludes the brain is not like a computer because the child could not draw a detailed dollar bill without the picture. Noone is saying the brain IS a photographic camera or that the brain IS an actual computer. The analogy is that the brain is similar to a computer.

He goes on to state:

"A thousand years of neuroscience will never locate a representation of a dollar bill stored inside the human brain for the simple reason that it is not there to be found. The idea that memories are stored in individual neurons is preposterous: how and where is the memory stored in the cell?"

He says scientists will never locate and actual representation of a dollar bill in the brain. First off, they might. There may be a physical thing in the brain representative of a dollar bill, who knows? He is using an argument from ignorance fallacy. People do this in religion all the time. Just because something is not detected and cannot be imagined by a mind does not mean it doesn't exist. 1,000 years is a looong time and our understanding of brain activity will be MUCH more advanced to the point we can't even imagine today. . .  His second statement is wrong. We know that memories are correlated to the hippocampus. When a person is recalling memories, the hippocampus becomes active. When the hippocampus is inactivated, no memories arise. Perhaps "storage" is not the right word because it suggests a physical item being stored. Yet, there is clearly some type of association between the material hippocampus and the (likely) immaterial memory.

There is plenty of research of computers decoding brain activity back into images. For example, people can watch a movie and a computer can decode brain activity back into the images of the movie. This is one form of a computer decoding a different language of another type of computer brain.

There is an integration of the immaterial and material into holism. Taking one side or the other is a major block against deeper understanding. I think it is a big mistake to have a dualistic view and say the brain is either immaterial or material. It is both and neither. The immaterial is material and vice-versa. Once we get into this mindset, our progress and understanding will skyrocket. 

In terms of opposition to the materialist view, a much stronger argument resides in metaphysical realms. That is, nonduality. The brain resides in One nondual consciousness. Consciousness does not arise from a physical brain. The physical brain resides in consciousness. Yet again, this is a dualistic view of nonduality vs. duality. The deepest levels of understanding will integrate the two.

 

 

 

"He is using an argument from ignorance fallacy."

The mind loves when it has a chance to make up whatever it wants the answer to be when we don't have the answer or can't get the answer, I'm happy you pointed out that fallacy because it's so common

[Forestluv]

12 minutes ago, zambize said:

"He is using an argument from ignorance fallacy."

The mind loves when it has a chance to make up whatever it wants the answer to be when we don't have the answer or can't get the answer, I'm happy you pointed out that fallacy because it's so common

Yep. I think a lot of people don’t like the uncertainty of not knowing and make stuff up. Then the mind gets attached to it’s story and defends it. It’s a major block to expansion and discovery.

I think memories are absolutely fascinating- in all sorts of realms. Physical and metaphysical- it’s all so fascinating. 

[Key Elements]

30 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Yep. I think a lot of people don’t like the uncertainty of not knowing and make stuff up. Then the mind gets attached to it’s story and defends it. It’s a major block to expansion and discovery.

I think memories are absolutely fascinating- in all sorts of realms. Physical and metaphysical- it’s all so fascinating. 

I agree with what you said here.

I just want to add something else to it. Even if a person experienced Truth with a capital T, the mind could still be attached to that for a while. The ego mind will initially think it's grandiose. It will probably be a while before the person comes up with a plan on how to express/teach the Truth in real life in his/her own way. Even then, the way to express it has to be well planned. Most ppl won't understand your work if it's not well thought out.

[Forestluv]

30 minutes ago, Key Elements said:

I agree with what you said here.

I just want to add something else to it. Even if a person experienced Truth with a capital T, the mind could still be attached to that for a while. The ego mind will initially think it's grandiose. It will probably be a while before the person comes up with a plan on how to express/teach the Truth in real life in his/her own way. Even then, the way to express it has to be well planned. Most ppl won't understand your work if it's not well thought out.

Yep. I think that’s very common, including my own experience. I’ve noticed my self take ownership of awakening experiences and identifying with them. And line you say, even when I detach from the insight, it takes a lit of skill and maturity to offer it to another. It’s something I’m still working on and probably will for the rest of my life. 

[tecladocasio]

@Highest So this Forum is an illusion too , because is not what i appears to be ? Why are you here them ? 

[lmfao]

@Highest

On 14/03/2019 at 10:13 PM, Highest said:

The brain and matter is an illusion, meaning it isn't what it appears to be. 

 

So no point reading that article for me at least 

It depends if you find it interesting or not. Everything is an illusion, but what parts of the illusion you find interesting is up to you.

@Shadowraix

On 14/03/2019 at 11:08 PM, Shadowraix said:

This article is taking the comparison way too literally.

This article sounds like the guy is deathly afraid of being compared to a computer, often because we often try to see ourselves as something beyond that.

The article basically just explains that it doesn't process or store information in the same way as the brain. Which is true, but that doesn't make the computer analogy really any less of a point to make.

When you dig into your own psychology you discover how you've functioned your entire life is equivalent to a self-programmable AI. Comes with an initial directive, can take in information, and modify and adapt its own directive. There was a post on here sometime ago that eloquently broke down the programming and meta-programming of the mind and its programs.

Yeah I 100% agree with you tbh.

At a fundamental level I have no scientific understanding of how "information" and "intelligence" works and so I'm ultimately undecided on how close brains and computers are at a literal level, but beyond the literal level the comparison is very true just in the realm of thinking about self actualisation. 

@Serotoninluv Yeah his dollar bill thought experiment was stupid. The largest stretch of a conclusion I derive from everything he said about that experiment is that even if a human brain were to "be like" a computer it would obviously be very different in important ways. The absence of having a photographic memory doesn't invalidate the brain to computer comparison at all. 

Quote

When a person is recalling memories, the hippocampus becomes active. When the hippocampus is inactivated, no memories arise. Perhaps "storage" is not the right word because it suggests a physical item being stored. Yet, there is clearly some type of association between the material hippocampus and the (likely) immaterial memory.

Yes exactly. It was indeed an argument from ignorance. It reminds me of religious people who demand that you have every single existing unknown be explained in scientific terms before they accept science, rather than looking at the knowns science has given. A religious fundamentalist might ask "how do randomly moving molecules form biological life" and the absence of an answer gives them justification to say that it must be God.

Edited March 16, 2019 by lmfao

[tedens]

On 15.03.2019 at 2:54 AM, tecladocasio said:

@Highest So this Forum is an illusion too , because is not what i appears to be ? Why are you here them ? 

@tecladocasio ...cause he still experiencing it.