Semi-philosophical - semi Ai semi processor question

[johnjwaters]

Alright, I'm doing an essay on whether or not the mind and brain are identical etc and I just had a quick question regarding PCs, cus quite a few people make the analogy of software / hardware to mental / brain states.

Someone mentioned on another thread that some processors simply operate in a way that wouldn't allow certain types of software to be run on them (the example was linux on a risc processor - which someone said was wrong) but are there are other examples?

I think the analogy is just completely flawed, lets face it, a punch card reader ain't gonna be making an adequate replication of Quake 3 any time in the near future.

[johnjwaters]

and just as a general question, does anyone here think that one day computer will have anything like our "experiences" ?

[Valken]

The only time software won't run on diff machines is if that software is written in assembly...

for example asm written for a powerpc (risc) processor wouldn't work on one based on the x86 instruction set.

I guess the analogy there would be different ways of thinking suit different people's brains. There's got to be a link between the mind and the brain in that respect even if you do say that the mind is "more" than neurons firing in response to stimuli.

I would link coding with risc processors to a more imaginative person's mind as you need to be a bit creative given a "limited" (not really) amount of things you can do while with cisc cpus there's more vocabulary but things are a bit less elegant, more clinical.

That's prob open for debate depending on preference though.

in terms of high level languages think of that as a common way of communicating ideas but assembly is the ideas

[man, that's a well-flakey attempt at philosophising!!!]

[superkully]

The question about computers experiencing 'emotion' has been discussed to varying degrees of sensibility in many a score of books, if you're doing this for a Uni. essay go down to the philosophy, AI and Psychology sections.

Nearly all computational devices are the same, that is all they do is get - execute all day long. From your digital watch to your Barton Athlon XP with extra knobs. I say nearly because people are building true artificial neural nets (not ones simulated in software on a get-execute computer). But without a 'neural transistor' which can be made super simply and small enough so we can have neural network even a few orders smaller than then average human brain - we're not going to be doing cool ****. The more you get into this field, the more you question whether science has all the answers (I'm not a religious freak or owt, so don't start).

As to your brain/mind and hardware/software essay, I wrote some silly little essay in my 1st year AI degree, I'll see if I still have it.

What course are you doing and where, if it's not too rude?

[jezzace]

I had a ton of questions like this in my A level philosophy course with my actual exam question being "is the mind the brain?" That was it! Its all pretty standard stuff if you read the books. Actually the course annoyed me a little because it was more like a history course. If you learn all the arguments, pick the one you like, learn the counter arguments, you can't lose...well I got a B which ain't bad.

Like you said, superkully, the more you get into the subject the more you question science; I used to think the mind was just chemicals and impulses but now I don't think we'll ever know what the mind is.

[dr_manhattan]

try reading this:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0753812770/qid=1079991143/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_2_1/202-4821493-0321461

[johnjwaters]

Thanks for the help - I'm doing English and philosophy and the question is same as what they guy did in his alevels ,"are mind states identical with brain states." I get what you say about choosing and picking an argument, I've had lots of fun reading about searle's chinese room experiments, armstrong identity theories etc. The teachers at Uni reckon we're supposed to do more than treat our essays as exercises in learning theories - but tbh I think thats impossible! Everything is so based on what everyone else has studied before, no way I'm gonna bring **** but history to it. oh well, at least I get to use lots of foot notes, which always make me look clever

I'm with Searle all the way - basically computers have a syntax but no semantics, there's no meaning. They could (can't yet though eh) do perfection translations of chinese but they wouldn't understand it, no sir. Thanks for the book suggestion too, although I only have two days to finish it now I might look it up afterwards.