gib
I am warmed up now - time to get more in depth into this exploration . . . I am really going to go for this - like crazy. There is no time like the present for me or even yourself to really run wild with concepts, ideas, thoughts, words or whatever about the brain or mind. Do not feel obligated to answer everything - there is going to be a lot - believe me - feel free to only answer that which interests you or all of it. I will happily read and respond to everything you type.
Sandbox is a playground . . . as Arcturus Descending says. There are probably going to be some breaks in logic - because I am going to get the thoughts out as quickly as possible - that is what questions are for - to clear up any mishap I might introduce. There might be spelling mistakes and bad grammar - I will happily get over that if you are happy to ignore it and press on. I really like the idea of just going like crazy.
We have with certainty designed computers. They do model parts of the brain in specific ways. I am going with the mind rather than the brain - why? because no matter what the mind can still be differentiated from the brain - even if only abstract. Two forms of logic - soft logic - hard logic.
The rendering art and running video games I will leave aside for the time being and I will return to the specific ways of doing mathematics and solving logical problems. One challenge in AI has been to model the game GO - perhaps you have heard of it - it is incredible for a couple of reasons - eventually you shall see how they relate to this conversation:
We were able to model Chess in the 70’s or 80’s(don’t quote me on that). As you are probably already aware you can play Chess against the computer. Many in the field of artificial intelligence consider Go to require more elements that mimic human thought than chess. Chess has on average 37 legal moves per turn compared with 150 to 200 average legal moves for GO.
I added this for a little historical context - to read the whole article which is actually quite lengthy click here.
Now if we were to consider how the computer models GO compared to a brain I think that we would find the two very different. Our mind however would be similar and just a bit slower. I am still claiming that computers are a result of the mind and not the brain - but this can get ambiguous of course.
Neurons themselves are quite a bit different to logic gates or even combinations of them. These gates are the AND, OR, NOT, NAND, NOR, EXOR and EXNOR gates. Digital circuits are of course modeled using combinations of logic gates. When we are building a computer we are building a mass of gates - in many ways different to the brain. We can put software on the hardware. We have to do conversions from binary all the way up to English with many layers in between - these are called abstractions.
The mind sits on top of the brain as the software sits on top of the hardware - then there is the case of firmware of which analogies can be made:
Hardware - > Instinct
Firmware - > Mood
Software - > Emotion
Hardware - > Brain
Firmware - > Instinct
Software - > Mind
Or however else one wants to divide things up . . .
. . . obviously it is these divisions that we work with when we discuss these sorts of things . . .
. . . the divisions are a matter of convenience and . . .
. . . standards are just divisions that we agree upon . . .
Despite Go’s relatively simple rules, Go is very complex - so with some relatively simple logic rules we are able to build a brain, which is complex - however the mind is a completely different kettle of fish. To get at the mind we must first enter through the brain. The brain is something that we are able to take out of the skull and sit on a bench ready to chop up. The full brain sitting on the bench is intact - a logic circuit. Plasticity - huh - totally estimated the wrong way - thoughts and memories et cetera are able to be interpolated and interwoven - id est a new circuit is not created for every thought or every memory as is suggested by plasticity.
Go possesses more possibilities than the total number of atoms in the visible universe - all in a 19×19 grid of lines - the brain is a lot more complex, obviously, so it possesses more possibilities than the total number of possibilities of Go. Why do I make such a big deal about the mind then? The mind sits atop of the brain - simple - the mind possesses more possibilities than the brain through its ability to interpolate thoughts and interweave memories. Why then through out our life do we not come up with thoughts and memories that are more than the total number of atoms in the visible universe? A good question to leave unanswered I think.
This less addresses the second part above. You are right they are tools - powerful and scary tools - but the tools that sit in the driver seat are much scarier. We make many more mistakes than a computer. You can see that I mostly agree with you and no doubt may sense some disagreement - but this is good I think.
What does it take to form an opinion? The mind of course - what do we know about the mind? Itself is complex as is the underlying substrate(the brain). Is our brain a mechanical slave to our mind? It had to be asked because it just came into my mind. We agreed earlier on in the year that we program ourselves and others through communication and information et cetera or something along them lines.
But what does it take to form an opinion?
► Hard logic is what the brain works with.
► Firm logic is akin to instinct.
► Soft logic is what the mind works with.
Does the human mind really render art and run video games better than a computer? Depends on context, perspective et cetera - I think I get the gist of what you originally meant though. Such minute details really are not so important in this type of conversation. Crazy, crazy and more crazy . . .