Why do we need stored memories in the brain?

Jok said:

The programs are becoming so complex that the programmers themselves can’t keep up with the path that their algorithms take as their AI “Writes their own code”, but that phrase that seems to scare everyone of “Writing their own code” still all falls within the programmed algorithm. The programmers can’t keep up with knowing the outcomes because the programs are so complex, not because it’s thinking. There is no rebellion against the algorithm, the “Self writing” of its own code is just misleading language, it can only be code written under the rules of the algorithm, no actual decision making takes place in the strict sense of decision making. Computers can only mindlessly create nature preserves for humans to live in if an algorithm is created that makes such a process so, A Skynet type scenario would either be a total lie where someone is pulling the strings but claiming that the computers are thinking for themselves, or it will be another case of human stupidity where we specifically design something that can destroy us. If we create a program that results in “Once we press this button machines all over the world will murder us all” that doesn’t make the AI alive or conscious anymore than you would claim that the nukes that can kill us all if we press this button are alive and conscious. In both cases it’s just something created by us with a kill us all feature designed into it.

Click to expand...

cloudyday2 said:

If you accept evolution, then you might want to reconsider your lack of concern. Even if you believe that humans contain a soul/spirit that computers lack, there is no reason to assume that computers won't someday conclude that humans are unnecessary.

Click to expand...

Akita Suggagaki said:

Well the body gives us individuality in the physical realm which we would not have without it. That body needs control which the brain provides. But memories are another matter if they can go with a soul after death.

You believe God the Father has a physical brain?

Click to expand...

Akita Suggagaki said:

If the spirit survives the death of the body and has recollection of personality and memory, why do we need to store memories in a physical brain?

Click to expand...

Jamdoc said:

My point is, that the brain is the physical location where "you" are. every other body part can be replaced, but your brain cannot.
that's what I mean by transplantable.
transplantable parts are replaceable parts, you can't replace the brain, even when we have the resurrection God will be reconstituting your brain. It's not a replacement it's a resurrection and probably a tuneup/upgrade while still remaining your physical brain.

Click to expand...

Zoness said:

IMO this is one of the main reasons the idea of the soul falls apart, but in the opposite direction. Insofar as we can observe; all cognitive capacity of a human is a function of the brain. If the brain dies its reasonable to conclude from the evidence that a person is gone. I know some religions have a theological explanation for a soul, but I can't get anyone to ever pin down in layman's terms what it is.

For example, if the Christian god is torturing you in hell, what is feeling the pain? Pain is usually part of a neurological process received by the brain. It seems like functionality of the material body is crossing over into some nebulous philosophical bin that we're calling the soul.

So in truth I entirely see where your question comes from; it doesn't makes sense when you think about the answers for awhile.

Click to expand...

Jok said:

It’s actually my belief in evolution that causes me to dismiss it. From the moment that the Earth was no longer molten and rocks cooled down enough we have proof of fossilized life. It then took billions of years of evolution to finally reach the point where self awareness emerged in the form of large brained mammals. None of this entire process has anything to do with inorganic material. I don’t have the slightest evolutionary idea how self awareness would magically emerge from microchips because humans started dabbling with them anymore than I would expect cars to become self aware! This conscious AI idea is Functionalism, it says that if we could get computer closer & closer & closer to acting self aware, to a point where they are finally close enough to fool people that they are self aware, then they will BE self aware. To me that’s like a bunch of people being convinced that they just discovered Big Foot after sitting there watching an actor put on a Big Foot costume and start growling and jumping around (however they watched the actor put on this routine for months but didn’t believe it, it was only after they made enough improvements to the costume that it looked real that the people decided to believe it).

Click to expand...

cloudyday2 said:

One of my theories on freewill is that when our brains are no longer capable of understanding their own actions based on algorithmic/cause-and-effect models then a "choice" is imagined from some outside agent with freewill. That doesn't necessarily mean that the brain's behavior could not have been predicted with an algorithmic/cause-and-effect model - only that it was too complicated for our brain. It's a little like "God of the gaps" - "freewill of the gaps" or "consciousness of the gaps".

So how do we distinguish thinking from what a computer does? Smart people can still roughly understand computer behaviors. Computers are usually designed to have predictable behaviors, because that makes them good tools. However, eventually computers are going to be too complex to understand and predict. A little change to some computer program someday might have implications unexpected by the programmer, because the code is so complex.

There is also a requirement for computer programs that "seem" to think. The automated customer support programs are an example. In those cases, the goal of the code is a program that is capable of adapting to unseen scenarios to solve customer issues. That's a lot like human thinking.

Click to expand...

Akita Suggagaki said:

Thanks,, all for kicking this around with me.

Click to expand...

awitch said:

I can't believe this is a conversation I'm having in the year 2020.

Click to expand...

awitch said:

Of course not.
But I'm playing along so we can all see what the implications are.

Click to expand...

AV1611VET said:

But the Kundalini Serpent does make sense to you, I take it? even though you filter it out of your belief system for whatever reason?

Click to expand...

awitch said:

My religion isn’t a package deal like yours.

Click to expand...

AV1611VET said:

But does the Kundalini Serpent make sense to you?

(It either does, or it doesn't, witch. This isn't a trick question.)

Click to expand...

AV1611VET said:

You're quick at laughing at my beliefs; but awful slow at yours.

Click to expand...

awitch said:

I don’t know anything of the serpent you’re referring to.

Click to expand...

awitch said:

I don’t know anything of the serpent you’re referring to.

Click to expand...

Sorn said:

If you take your car into a mechanics garage, the garage will a have a bunch of machines sitting around. The mechanic will go to one of these, made for your cars model etc and roll it over to your car, hook it up and then run your car. The machine will then test your cars'e engine and read out a bunch of parameters. In other words your car is a machine and the testing tools is a machine so there is a machine that tests another machine.

In modern programming environments & practices, you not only write the program you actually want or need but you would also write another program that will put your program through its paces & check & report on its results & outputs. This 'testing' program can be run as often as you want and can regularly check on the health and behavior of its target program.
This means that even really complex programs can be tested to ensure they perform as expected.
If your program can do 30 different things then the test program should also be written to set up the conditions (ie the data) that gives rise to each of those 30 different outcomes and then to check that each outcome for each of the 30 cases is as expected.

Click to expand...