Jestine Osumi: Agree.Before I say anything, though, let me just say in response to those who are arguing that our experiences create new neural connections in the brain, and therefore the connection between mind and brain is stronger than the connection between software and hardware: let me just point out that software does, in fact, alter hardware physically . Every time your computer writes to the hard drive, such physical alterations are taking place. Furthermore, software creates new connections in the hardware itself, just like experiences create new neural connections in the brain. That a computer can flush those connections and rewrite them with new ones much more quickly than the human brain can is another issue . . . but the basic principle is the same. Right at this very instant, to do what your computer is doing requires a unique set of changes in the hardware, in the memory, in the cpu, in the video card, etc. Whether these changes are easily rewritten or not ! is a significant difference between the brain and computer hardware, but the principle of the software/mind causing changes in the hardware/brain is essentially the same, at least from a philosophical point of view. Software is nonphysical. It does not exist physically (except as changes in the hardware). You cannot touch it or smell it or taste it (you can do those things with the DVD the software comes stored on, but the DVD is hardware). In exactly the same way, the mind does not exist physically (except as changes in the brain). The analogy is sound. And it raises some important questions. Most importantly, with regard to the issue of whether the mind can be reduced to brain. Certain scientists today seem fond of showing how by making changes to the brain they can induce certain changes in the mind. Is that really any great surprise? If you make changes to the hardware of your computer, the software will be affected. In the end, everything you see and can do on your com! puter is being produced by the hardware, so how could you not ! expect for certain alterations to the hardware to not be reflected in what you see and can do with your computer? Likewise, everything that is seen in the mind is being produced by the brain (despite the fact that it is the mind that ultimately guides the brain, just as software guides the hardware). So it should be obvious that changes to the brain may and can affect the mind. But despite this being true, no one assumes that software is reducible to hardware, the way so many philosophers seem to believe mind is reducible to brain. Indeed, while software always requires hardware to exist, if it were reducible to hardware then you wouldn't be able to go out and buy a new copy of Windows 7 to replace your version of Windows XP, you would need to buy a whole new set of hardware. Software, in a sense, transcends hardware . . . which is why the same set of software can be placed on all kinds of hardware mediums, whether it be a DVD, a hard drive, a MP3 player, or streamed throug! h data networks. Software is not tied to any particular piece of hardware . . . and that should make us pause when it comes to the mind/brain issue. Because it strongly suggests that mind inherently transcends brain, just like software inherently transcends hardware. And just because right now the tie between mind and brain is mandatory due to a lack of alternative mediums or a way of transferring the information . . . in principle it need not be, and one day, perhaps, won't be. It also raises interesting questions regarding the possibility of life after death....Show more
Darnell Cutliff: That is what all the evidence seems to suggest. The virus thing does not work an analogy very well. We may have some faulty programming. That would be if when we were young we were told that Paris is the Capital of the USA.We may have data overload - that would be stress and other emotional problemsWe may have actual physical damage or 'wiring' problems in the brain. That would be p! roblems like schizophreniaSo the computer analogy works but only limite! dNB:A problem with the analogy is that our brain is self programming. The information to develop and run the programme comes from our experiences. We also have emotions which are part of the programme of the brain...Show more
Marylee Lucks: I think it is not so soft to have such a conclusion.
Marvella Benward: Partly correct, but with a big exception. In humans, the "software" of our experiences actually rewires the "hardware" of the brain, creating new neural connections, and sometimes destroying significant connections.The brain and mind are not as divisible as the programming and hard-drive of the computer.
Abel Adger: Well Mr. Smartypants. How do you explain brain farts and migraines? My computer has never farted or screamed for excedrin. How do you fit that into the equation?
Margart Stimpert: Agree, Nice analogy. The brain as the physical system, the mind as the thoughts and processes running within. ------------------ I digress: I find it in! teresting that humans have basically had the same "brains" for some 50 thousand years(+- from memory... since genetic eve) yet our programming has gone through vast changes. If we could transport a baby through time from 50,000 years ago and give him to a modern family, I believe there would be few appreciable differences....Show more
Pamela Meno: Not so simple But Similar Or to put it another way That is a Simple way of describing something that is Very Complicated But doesn't seem so
Rodolfo Merel: yup. if you get into computer programming you will see that software is written in the same decision making manner as people choose. if/else/then. if X happens then Y else Z...its quite interesting. whenever a higher form of intelligence creates a lower form of intelligence they create it in their image ;)
Penelope Armond: Oversimplification is corruption of mind...corrupt simplification made possible through idiomatic usage. The crystal clear difference bet! ween soft and hard was arbitrated by the attachment of -ware to each. S! implification is a necessary step in fabrication, but fabrication is not compulsory, except, of course, for a fabricator and his confederates: this is the real relation that cannot be obscured by such nonsense. Your nonsense attempts (and fails miserably) to elevate the role of the fabricator to that of educator....Show more
Tomeka Hameen: I'm going virtual with a clean image
No comments:
Post a Comment