From a philosophical standpoint:
How much of a brain can you replace with a computer interface that performs the same functions before the resulting system ceases to be alive and/or conscious?
>>362170
A brain is just a biological computer. Replace a neuron with a synthetic neuron, there is no difference. Keep doing this until all neurons are replaced.
>>362170
If the computer does the exact same thing as the brain, there is no reason to believe conscioisness ever ceases. The problem is that we don't really understand the brain all that well, let alone what its exact relation to consciousness is.
You know i completely forgot about how exactly the philosophical zombie worked in that intro to phil class i took so long ago
>>362196
I'd say yes, but again, we'd need to know how to build a brain in order to do that.
Until then, the most efficient way to create a conscious being will be reproduction.
>>362196
>would it be alive?
Depends on how you define "alive". Is an iPad alive? Is a virus? Is a bacterium?
>Would it be conscious?
It should be completely conscious of anything you stimulate its senses with.
>>362200
It doesn't have a specific way of functioning, it is simply a being that displays all the observable traits of consciousness, without being conscious. Materialism is the position that this is not possible, the alternative postion is a lifelong paranoia that you're the only person who qualifies as such, surrounded by things that pretend to think and feel, but don't.
>>>/Ghost in the Shell/
>>362170
>How much of a brain can you replace with a computer interface that performs the same functions before the resulting system ceases to be alive and/or conscious?
Two ship of Theseus' worth.
>>362239
Identical interactions, identical emergence.
>>362245
I want to have dark demented sex inside the waiting room of the realm of my libidinal hate and on the verge of the opening of my higher appreciation. I want to fuck your twin as a younger version of you, and rapemurder you both, slowly, while smooth jazz plays in the background.
I want to enter your small town thoroughly and eat your ditzy secretary's doughnut on the police interrogation room table in front of the sheriff.
mmm. good coffee.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
The Greeks were asking the same thing thousands of years ago more or less.
>>362196
>would it be alive?
That depends on whom you ask. Personally, I'd say it would be.
>Would it be conscious?
If it runs the same process the human brain does or something sufficiently close then it would most certainly be.
Would you risk your life to save your fellow man, even if that man is a synth?
>>362175
No it isn't. Clearly you don't understand anything about biology. The brain is not analogous to a computer.
The brain relies on various systems that machines cannot replicate. For instance, the brain does not measure time with anything comparable to a machine. The brain counts time by setting off a chemical reaction and measuring how long it takes to end. That's how your brain knows its "time to wake up" or "time to eat", because the reaction that started when you went to sleep 6 or 8 hours ago has now ended. Not only that, the brain does not compartmentalize functions universally. Some parts of the brain perform functions across various parts rather than just having one "processor". There's no RAM in the brain either, it is able to create more neural pathways as needed to form new memories or ways of thinking, and it has no danger of overheating or shutting off if too much of a burdern is placed on it, the person just needs to eat more or have a rest.
The brain is nothing like a machine. Its not a biological computer either. It doesn't even operate on anything comparable to binary.
>>364775
Well that's wrong. The brain is a computer.
>>364779
No it isn't, its a brain. It can "can compute things", but isn't a computer. An abacus can compute things, but isn't a computer. Also, computers are not self-organizing, they must be programmed to carry out their function. Humans don't.
Lol assuming mind brain identity
But ya tho
>>362277
An hero with ur brute emergence scat.
I mean I think you're right honestly, I just don't think emergence is the word you're looking for. It's a contextualist model of mind you have in mind. Indexical even?
>>362170
stupid thought...computers can be hacked/have bugs
>>363316
The wider issue is the problem of identity.
The Greeks have Law of Identity. But the Buddhists have dependent origination/anatta(no-self) which "solves" this Ship of Theseus problem.
Been that way bit longer than the Greeks by a century or two.
>>365030
So can brains, we just don't know enough to do it efficiently, yet.
>>364793
>Also, computers are not self-organizing, they must be programmed to carry out their function.
Same could be said about brains, just that the initial programming wasn't done by another human, but by aeons of evolution.
>>364775
I don't see anything you listed that a machine could not replicate.
What precludes a semiconductor based computer from using chemical sensors as input devices?
Why must all mechanical computing be done in binary? Because that is the way we(mostly) do it now?
What precludes a mechanical computer from having automatic precautions from overheating?
>There's no RAM in the brain either
What do you call short-term memory then?
I don't think you understand computing.
>>365030
What do you think drugs do? What do you think mental disorders are?
>>362170
It's meaningless to talk about reductionism when it comes to the brain.
We have consciousness because of the totality of the brain structure, not only because of it's neural parts.
>>364775
Only one of those reasons is an actual reason why the brain isn't like a computer. And all that one boils down to is that the brain isn't like /our current computers/, but it is certainly logically possible for a computer to exist that has more than one processor and to compute things in parallel, exactly like our brains.
>>365721
>Only one of those reasons is an actual reason why the brain isn't like a computer
Which one, I'm not seeing it.
>>365697
Not meaningless. What type of question you answer depends on what level of reductionism you should take. You can further understand the brain by learning about it's mechanical/biological parts, just like you can further understand a computer by learning about its parts.
>>365725
The brain seems to do parallel processing in a way that is unlike how modern day computers do it, at least as far as my understanding of computers go (I study on the neuroscience side of things).
>interface
You don't even know the words you're using. fuck off
It's amazing how people can still believe memes brought about by cheap sci-fi writers.
The brain does not function in a way even remotely similar to a computer.
Perhaps we could build brain or brain-like things "artificially" (we build brains every time a child is born) but they wouldn't have much to do with what we call computers, even by using computer in a very broad sense.
>>365740
How does the brain do it? Modern computers compute across many different CPUs at once. A lot have 8 cores in the main processor, and even more in the GPU. They all work together.
>>365761
>The brain does not function in a way even remotely similar to a computer
Would you bother to explain in what ways it does not?
>>362170
You've answered your own question;
>that performs the same functions
>>363316
The thing is, the mind produces identities. Including it's own.
What do engineers say about the Ship of Theseus?
>>364775
That is one of the ways the brain counts time.
In the human brain, the clock is a process that eats resources, not the metronome, not a meta-process that conducts the entire show.
>>365783
Not the other guy, but a CPU is basically a number cruncher. It takes in simple instructions(machine code) from a program and churns out simple results. You can call it an arithmetic machine. Most modern CPU have 2-4 cores, which increase the arithmetic capability and multi processing.
In order for modern computer to be like a brain, it would have to be similar to a GPU with proper swarm type AI code. GPU have hundreds/thousands of small cores working together to do small arithmetic and they then relay the results to a main pipeline where all those results gets churned out.
>>362175
> Brain is a Turing Machine
> Laugung Searle.jpg
CS students, when will they learn?
>>365797
>they then relay the results to a main pipeline where all those results gets churned out.
This is not at all how the brain works. It's in fact quite the opposite of what you are describing.
>>365783
Brain doesn't work digitally.
>>365814
Describe me how a brain works from neurons firing to a man thinking/speaking.
>>365817
>Brain doesn't work digitally.
Neither does a computer. The computations are the result of physical processes from the circuits of the processor. We represent and understand these processes using numbers, but it is still electricity flowing through a conductor.
What makes these physical processes different from the physical processes in our brain?
Is it that our brain uses chemicals instead of electrical signals sometimes? I could connect a chemical sensor to a regular computer and have it run all sorts of computations based on the signals it picks up. I could also just as easily connect pressure, heat, and visible light sensors.
Is it because our brain handles parallel processing in a different way? It's still doing parallel processing, something only computation machines do, just in a way that is, perhaps, more effective for its task.
>>365818
That's something that takes 8 years of higher education to understand, and you want a concise answer on a Taiwanese interpretive dancing image board.
You ask for the impossible.
Go find some lectures online from some reputable institutions and start there.
>>362219
But that's not really "the alternative position", sidestepping the fact that there is many positions besides the materialistic one, the distinction is that there is something more to conciousness than can be observed empirically from the outside.
The concept of a philosophical zombie is not really used to justify paranoia, it's just a way to explain a philosophical position.
>>365946
>literal autism
>>365941
>can't summarize
If you can't explain a concept to a child, is not understood properly.
No need to be pretentious.
>>365946
>But that's not really "the alternative position", sidestepping the fact that there is many positions besides the materialistic one, the distinction is that there is something more to conciousness than can be observed empirically from the outside.
Wellllllllllllllll
The part where you have a perspective can't be explained. But every human behavior and thought will likely be explained.
I haven't heard the question on perspective phrased correctly yet, so I don't what the flip the answer might be.
>>365995
That's bullshit. Even the best mechanics would have a hard time explaining the entire inner workings of the car, from the gas going in, to the wheels moving to a child in a way they would understand it. Prerequisite knowledge is a concept for a reason, and understanding these topics requires loads of it.
>>366027
Sorry thats where you're wrong. You can easily explain how a car works if you understand it properly.
>all work requires energy, humans eat food, cars use fuel
>fuel is stored in fuel tank and pushed through the tubes to the engine where its combined with electrical spark to create small explosions
>etc
You can easily explain car to a child if you have the know hows. Same with how a computer works, how a brain works and how the body digests food, etc.
You are speaking nonsense when you say you can't explain complex things to a child using simpler terms.
Even most complex math can be explained to a child if understood thoroughly. If you can't explain complex things using simple things, then you have not understood the principle of the concept. All you're doing is merely memorizing/parroting a concept. You have to know how to take apart the complex concept and apply it to everyday life to truly understand what you're talking about.
>>366079
But... everyone ITT already knows the simple explanation of how these things work... yes?
>>362170
Why system ceases to be alive or conscious when you replace to real perfectly working piece?
>The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned from Crete had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their places, in so much that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same.
>>366079
>pushed through the tubes
What tubes?
>to the engine
What's an engine?
>combined with electrical spark to create small explosions
Why does the engine explode?
You can see where I'm going with this right? These types of simple explanations offer nothing to that individuals understanding of the system beyond the names of the components, and offer even less to a reasoned debate on this topic. They inevitably lead to a string of followup questions, which takes way longer to explain than would be reasonable for this medium.
>>364854
No, I mean emergence, the appearance of behavior at one scale in a system that cannot be traced to the behavior of individual components at another scale, only the structure of their interactions. If the structure of interactions is the same, then the system behavior is the same. Hence the success of, for example, the sandpile model at describing things that are not sand.
>>362170
>How much of a brain can you replace with a computer interface that performs the same functions before the resulting system ceases to be alive and/or conscious?
No one knows nor ever will know. Such is the problem of robo-humans.
>>362182
Consciousness ceases when you sleep.
>>362170
Its too early to say.
Computers as of yet cannot function the way human brains do.
Up until that point, we won't know, all we can do is circlejerk, which seems to be what this entire thread seems to be with most here not knowing shit about computers.
>>366079
Yeah bruv I'm sure you can explain cohomology to a kid, or how magnets work.
Giving a simple picture is different from actually explaining how shit works.
>>368744
>how magnets work.
Very few adults even know how magnets work, myself included.
>>368790
Well yeah, because it's complex as fuark, as said by Feynman in that interview.
>>368808
By the way, he was wrong about ice.
>>368790
Most people know varying degrees of how a magnet work. Most know if you touch same poles, it repel, when you touch opposite poles, they attract. Most know magnets attract metal substance. Some know magnets create magnetic field and they know the magnets and electrical force are same thing. . Even smaller people know the force magnets generate are one of the four main force in the universe. And so on.
>>368839
>Most know if you touch same poles, it repel, when you touch opposite poles, they attract.
Well duh but that is what "work" entails, not the physical processes that constitute how they work.
>>368875
Not sure what side you're arguing with here, but the question first asked was a guy asking for the actual process of how the spirit works.
>>368889
I'm just a guy who thinks explaining stuff at the level of how something like magnets work is extremely difficult because it gets into fundamental ways in which the universe operates that most people do not understand and humanity as a whole may not even know.
Is the brain's inner working a categorical imperative?
>>365818
I could make an attempt though it is an amateur effort and unlikely to properly answer your question.
A Neuron is composed rather roughly of three parts: A cell core, an Axon and Dendrites.
The cell core does rough analysis of its input.
The Axon relays a signal from the cell core to the end of the Axon (Through electrical signals) which is a Synapse.
The Dendrites of a cell receive input from multiple Synapses that relay information via chemicals.
I think the arrangement of these parts can vary somewhat (except for the cell core, which every cell has one of)
There are two types of signal a neuron can give. An "activating" signal and an "inhibiting" signal that either increase or reduce the signal relayed by the connected Neuron.
In this sense I don't think the signal of a Neuron is binary since the signal relayed can vary in strength.
Speech is computed in two (possibly more though) areas of the brain. The Wernicke area which handles interpretation of speech and without which an individual can not comprehend any language and the Broca area which handles output and without which the individual can not properly vocalize a language.
The output is sent to the appropriate mouth parts via Neurons to form sounds.
