The Conversation: The Computer Analogy (Identity Theory)

[teyrnon]

The following is an excerpt from a metaphysics paper I wrote a long time ago. I ran across it today, while going through some really old files, and decided it might be worth posting for discussion. On the face of it this is an argument for physicalism and identity theory. It is however fairer to say that it's an argument for my own personal version of identity theory. The majority of the paper this came from is a discussion of Papineau's "completeness of physics" argument for physicalism which states that "all physical effects are fully determined by law and by prior physical occurrences." That's all I'll say about it. To say more I'd have to go dig up the references page for this stuff and I quite honestly I don't feel like hunting it down tonight. :)

I am increasingly of the opinion that the mental is more akin to properties of the physical, not just the brain but the whole sum of the parts that make up a human being, rather than a thing in and of itself. Let me try to draw an analogy with something I am very familiar with; modern computers. I am from a family of electrical engineers so this comes more or less naturally to me. Some would complain that I am comparing apples and oranges and I realize that to an extent that is a very valid complaint but for my purposes here I will contend that it is sufficient that they both grow on trees, possess rounded shapes, have colors in the lower visible spectrum, will rot with time, and are fruit. I will not say that computers can think or that they are even remotely identical to the way the mind works but only that they are similar enough to draw some useful analogies.

The computer is a very complex and complicated device full of tiny and unseen parts that no one person can really claim he or she understands in full how everything interrelates and interacts. Most computers have some sort of output device, monitors, speakers, or printers and input devices such as keyboards, microphones, or mice and any variation there of. We'll take the typical desktop computer for our comparisons, which has a monitor for output and a keyboard and mouse for input. When a stimulus is provided such as a push of the mouse a signal travels from the mouse through the wiring and into the mainboard where it is processed by various controllers and the signal finally reaches the main processor which reacts in accordance to whatever sets of instructions (programming) are currently active. What we see is a reaction on the display; the cursor has moved in the direction we pushed the mouse. There is a chain of causes and effects that occur between the pushing of the mouse and the cursor moving on the screen and for someone using the computer all they need to know is that pushing the mouse causes the cursor to move even though there is a bit more happening internally but that is all we can see. If we had a rudimentary knowledge of computing, say that of the average computer user these days, we might think that there is a direct one to one causal relationship between moving the mouse and the cursor on the display moving, we might even develop elaborate theories about how a physical action can cause something seemingly nonphysical (the cursor) to react and we might even stumble upon the correct explanation eventually after long and careful analysis of the innards of the device.

The human body is also a very complex and complicated device full of tiny and unseen parts that no one person can really claim he or she understands in full how everything interrelates and interacts. Like the computer they have their own apparatuses for input and output. A tap on the shoulder will get a reaction as prompt as pushing the mouse did for our computer above. The tap causes a tactile sensation through various centers in the central nervous system determining various data which finally arrive in the cortex. The individual whose shoulder has just been tapped will react in someway in accordance to their attitudes, moods, knowledge, and learned responses (programming). A crucial difference is of course that we can have a much better understanding of how the computer works internally than we can of how the human body and mind works at this time in history. Like the average computer user when it comes to the design and functioning of the human body we are looking at something with a great many mysteries and aspects that are little understood and perhaps some that are even completely misunderstood. Only with time and continued study into the matter can we ever hope to unravel what's really going on beneath the surface of neurons, synapses, c-fibers, and so on.

Comments

[sdaemon.livejournal.com]

the lines of text are hurting my headachey eyes but I made it through :)

I can agree with Papineau...only if the addition of "but anyone who claims we fully understand all of the laws that dictate physical actions and consequences, or even physical existence itself, is an idiot" is made.

Sure, I'll buy that the universe is completely deterministic.

I'd say that its determinism is beyond the ken of us.

Though we are getting pretty good at approximating some pretty detailed stuff...but we cannot fathom it in its entirety, say I.

I have *faith* in that, so to speak.

:)

[cybermystic.livejournal.com]

A fully deterministic universe, while a valid reading isn't really Papineau's focus in the brief quotation I gave. He's just saying that physical effects have physical causes as opposed to somethng like a dualistic system where physical effects can be caused by this nonphysical thing, existing well beyond anything science can explain, many like to call spirit. For Papineau there is no dualism, everything is physical. Human thought and consciousness is a manifestation of physical processes in the brain. Papineau's field if philosophy of science and he is a metaphysical realist. He's very interested in what science can and can't eventually discover. I take his position as being that everything in the universe is capable of being understand in terms of physical processes that science can and will eventually unravel.

Only an arrogant fool, so wrapped up in his own hubris he no longer has any hold on reality, would claim that we "fully understand all of the laws that dictate physical actions and consequences or even physical existence itself."

Humans will probably never really figure it out. It'll be there for our vastly superior machine descendants to figure out.

[cybermystic.livejournal.com]

That last line was meant jokingly. For whatever reason LJ filtered out my little faux html style tags.

Brains and Computers

[(Anonymous)]

Here's a link you should enjoy... (grin)

http://scienceblogs.com/developingintelligence/2007/03/why_the_brain_is_not_like_a_co.php

~B~

Re: Brains and Computers

[cybermystic.livejournal.com]

Good article. :) You realize of course that my argument is more about degree of complexity than about brains and computers being similar? Like I said, I was comparing apples and oranges.

Re: Brains and Computers

[(Anonymous)]

Heh. As if I'm ever doing more than tossing related things into the hopper. :)

~B~